Transcript UW Enterprise Portal Evaluation

UW Enterprise Portal Evaluation
Report to Sponsors
18 February 2010
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.”
Project Organization
Project Planning/Leads
Application
Integration
Infrastructure
Portal Core
Community
Expectations
User
Interface
Mobility
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)
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.
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
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.
Candidate Platform Comparisons
Benefits
Challenges
• Good product documentation
• Lack of basic support for mobile
applications
• Easier codebase maintenance
• Better LDAP support
• Rich user interface
• Does not offer desired security
options out of box
• Good administration tools
• Better application integration
standards
• Offers a content management
system and integration with
collaboration tools (MS
Office/SharePoint )
• Offers desired security options
out of box
• Lacks overall product
documentation
• Larger user base among higher
education
• Lack of basic support for mobile
applications
• Less user- friendly
• Harder to administer
Platform Recommendation
• Liferay will require some custom work to integrate
Shibboleth.
Long-Term Recommendation:
Establish an Enterprise Portal Program
• Develop the foundation to support a longterm, sustainable enterprise portal program.
• Position the UW to evolve its application and
information aggregation strategies.
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
Proposed Structure
UW IT Governance
Portal Working Group
User Experience
Standards
Tech Standards
Recommended Next Steps
1.
Perform Proof-of-concept IAM Integration
–
–
2.
TIMELINE: 2-3 weeks (40-80 hours)
RESOURCES: Software engineer, IAM engineer, test & development infrastructure
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
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
Cost Estimates
• Initial Costs (not including staff time):
– Hardware & Licensing: $103,000 - $126,000
• Dev/eval/test: $34,000
• Prod: $47,000 – $70,000
• Business continuity: $22,000
– Implementation consulting: $40,000
– Vendor custom enhancement: $42,000 - $117,250
– Technical training: $31,000
• Ongoing Costs (maintenance & tech support): $43-65K/yr
– Dev/eval/test: $19,000
– Prod: $16,000 - $39,000
– Business continuity: $8,000
Discussion
• Questions about recommendations or
evaluation criteria?
• What resources are required when?
• OK to proceed with next steps?
• Who is the portal service manager/owner?
Resources
• Project Report:
https://wiki.cac.washington.edu/x/9BQPAQ
• Project Web Site:
https://wiki.cac.washington.edu/x/obbt
• Liferay Portal: http://www.liferay.com/
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, Paul Schurr, Mike Seibel, Oren
Sreebny, Scott Stephenson, Dan Trippel, Ann Testroet,
Darcy Van Patten, Jennifer Ward, David Wall, James
Werle, Charles Wesley, Sean Vaughan, Bill Yock