IT Architecture and Infrastructure Committee

9:00-10:30 a.m., June 9, 2017, FAC 228D

I. Introduction of Mike Cunningham, Chief Information Officer (John Chambers, Mike Cunningham)

Mike Cunningham introduced himself and acknowledged the current crisis going on.

II. CITEC – Update (Mike Cunningham)

Mike Cunningham provided an update to the committee on the current status. CITEC is dealing with urgent issues around larger purchases such as Sail Point and ServiceNow. CITEC focuses on Central IT, not ITS. UT’s budget issues are a symptom of a core problem that CITEC is trying to solve.

II. UT Login Stability and SailPoint Implementation – Update (C.W. Belcher)

C.W. Belcher updated the committee on UT Login. There have been 20 stability incidents with UT Login since last August. Each one affected ¼ to ½ of the users. Analysis has show that about 50% were due to customization issues (things we’ve done special), and about 25% were due to external dependencies. The system is also made up of aging components, and there has been increased demand since we moved to UT Web. The demands of UT Web put onto the system were not anticipated.

Their plan is to do the following:

·  Stabilize our current sytem. They removed one problem Sunday and will not go into “critical fix only” mode.

·  Upgrade components to the current versions (we are 3 versions behind, because upgrading the re-customizing is terrible).

·  Remove customizations and external dependencies

·  Engage consultants to review (not implement) their changes. Darrell (our CFO) has already approved funding.

The plan is to run the old environment and the new environment at the same time, and to start porting people over. The new version of OpenAM (an open-source Access Management server platform) that we are moving to includes some of the functionality that we had previously written ourselves. People will be able to use WPA, SAML, and now oauth.

UT may have to change their business processes instead of customizing the software to meet our needs.

Q: Are there any implications for user login with the upgrade in terms of the external sites? If I have a web server, what’s the impact on you?

A: Depends on what the transition looks like. Hopefully we can transition without any changes. I’m hopeful the transition will be smooth and seamless. If there are people who need to upgrade or schedule change, meet.

Q: For the members that are on SITEC, what governance changes/approaches that needs to be different from keep us from being 3 versions behind on this critical structure.

A: When of the main reasons why we are behind is because of the customizations. When we developed requirements with what we want, we really need to understand what that means in terms of customization in terms of product. The requirements drove the customizations – the team was trying to meet the requirements and we didn’t realize the consequences of the amount of customizations.

We need to engage people who understand this product.

Q: How would you categorize your staffing and number of hands to work on this issue?

A: There is only 1 vacancy. I believe we can’t implement this. We are focused.

Q: What is the consultant looking at?

A: Help us go through the requirements. Review the current environment that will make it more stable without a major investment.

Q: One thing I would like see on here is a method that will keep up to date with the versions so you won’t have to deal with this in three years again.

A: IAM committee will be our steering committee.

IV. SailPoint – Update (CW Belcher)

CW also updated AIC on the Sailpoint Implementation. Several years ago an IAAMM Roadmap was created across all areas. Some of the key things include: granting access takes too long, too manual, takes too long to get someone set up. There’s low to nonexistent to visibility to what we get out to campus. Inconsistency when people change jobs is a huge security risk. Some say it’s too hard to use it. We need to adapt to needs.

Q: How do we know that this is the right choice?

A: A lot of this is setting down the foundation for us to manage our systems more efficiently and in a more secure manner. This investment requires people to participate and use these tools.

Comment: We need Governance for us to push us to do something a certain way. We need a much more rigid mandate.

Comment: We need the ability to say no.

Comment: General Mandate. Is everyone using it? Can everyone use it? The effort to define our IT roles. This is critical to the use of this.

V. Cloud Services Charter – Endorse (Charles Soto)

The charter for the AIC UT Cloud Services Subcommittee was presented and endorsed unanimously.

VI. Pause of Committee (John Chambers, Charles Soto, Mike Cunningham)

CITEC is in charge of redefining governance. Mike Cunningham would like to pause for a couple months until we hear CITEC’s suggestions.

Comment: We still need a method to communicate. What is the process and methodology?

If there are any issues, please let any of the chairs or Angela Newell know.

It has been decided that AIC could continue to meet for informational – not governance purposes.