PROJECT REQUEST FORM V1

Note: This request should not exceed one page!

Date of Submission: 4/10/2013

Submitters & Date / Arlene Allen, Jamie Sonsini, Matthew Dunham– April 10, 2013
1.Initial and Proposed Sponsor(s) / Based on OIST analysis of Oracle Calendaring futures.
ITB executive sponsor + newly formed governance consortium.
2. Implementers / OIST CI
3.Project Name / 2013Q3 Connect Phase 2 Migration to O365
4.Description / Project will define the last phase of campus employee migration into O365, implement that migration, and stabilize the operational resources and processes responsible for UCSB employees within the O365 environment. Upon completion, all UCSB employee organizations choosing to migrate to O365 will be fully migrated or provisioned for email and calendaring functions. Support processes will be documented and in place.
5.Standalone or component. / Component of campus email and calendar migration to O365. Umail and I-mail components preceded. This is final phase. See O365 Connect Phase 1 paper.
6.Externalities and Related Time Dependencies / Cohort not yet defined. O365 to local Exchange not yet defined. No specific time domain drivers, but must work around higher priority campus projects already in progress such as UCPath and FIS.
7. Estimated Capital Resources and Timing in Person/months / 4 p/m senior architectural and management
4 p/m technical support
2 p/m CRM
8. Estimated Operational Resources, New or Delta / No expansion of server to Microsoft infrastructure required within currently defined architecture. Future architectural changes will be submitted independently. No estimate yet available for ongoing tier 1 or 2 support.
9. Motivating Factors:
Financial, Internal, External, Compliance, Security and Audit / Recover opportunity costs of multiple UCSB organizations maintaining similar services. Small increase in total financial outlay. Security context increase in complexity
10.If Applicable, why would senior management endorse? / Increased operational efficiencies are a priority. It is felt that a single set of tools for all employees will create a net enhancement to the campus collaboration environment. A common platform will serve as a baseline for newer, unified collaboration technologies.
11.If Applicable, why would consumers endorse? / Existing Outlook customers may have dim view of OWA and existing open source customers may dislike Microsoft style interfaces. Current customers of Microsoft Exchange based calendaring will enjoy newfound collaboration with former open sourced and Oracle Calendar customers.
12. Other comments / This is a prototype submission. Some of the answers are manufactured for purposes of presentation.

Legend:

Submitters may be anyone. Often will be from RACI Accountable and / or Responsible categories.

  1. Suggested sponsor(s) for both capital and operational phases. State so if unknown. RACI Accountable.
  2. Implementation may be on or off campus or a combination of resources. RACI Responsible.
  3. Descriptive name for purposes of filing and documentation.
  4. Overview of all major components and /or phases of the project and a description of the result.
  5. Describe whether this is an independent initiative or a component of a larger initiative, existing or proposed. In the case of a component, provide references to other docs.
  6. Describe any independent decisions or processes related to the need for this project. Also provide any known or estimated external timing mandates. These are not UCSB project planning constraints or timing, but rather externally mandated conditions or compliance directives.
  7. For the capital (develop and implement) phase up through customer acceptance completion, please estimate the resources required at whatever level of granularity is currently possible.
  8. Describe any incremental growth or latent capacity consumption for all resources implied by this project.
  9. For the categories that are relevant to this project, provide statements or references to external materials in support of this effort. The ‘External’ category is used for conditions such as current software no longer supported, updated standards, or other such externalities not covered by the other categories.
  10. This is a best estimate of why senior management would choose to be in favor of this effort from a cost of ownership and a return on investment perspective, both direct and indirect. What is the value to UCSB?
  11. What would consumers likely say about this effort? This is from a usability, accessibility, productivity, etc. perspective. This is not necessarily positive, but rather an honest assessment of what we might hear when well into the operational phase. One can assume a certain amount of negativity at any transition point. The steady state comes thereafter.