jdcmg banner
 

 

Minutes of the JDCMG Meeting

June 10, 2005, UC Davis

Vendor Scorecard

  • Status of putting on the Web (Allen Schiano UCI)
    Allen had several questions/ comments:
    1. Plots/ diagrams will be low priority and campuses will deal for themselves on reporting.
    2. Access — should it be open to anyone on campus, or restricted to an administrator who coordinates the input?
    The consensus was to have an administrator per campus, allow each campus to see its own data, but not be able to change anyone ’s, and also see summarized data at the campus and systemwide levels. UCI will host the server on their campus. Our committee will determine which vendors to review.
  • Action Items: The names of our administrators are due to Allen now. The time frame for completion is August/ Sept. UCB - Shel sent out manual spreadsheet for Iron Mountain, due back to him by June 30 for consolidation.
  • Iron Mountain status (Shel)
    The price per pound lost is in contract - reimbursed by weight of tape, lots of campus pockets under other contracts.
  • Action Items: Shel will work with UCOP to get better protection written and request a revisit of current contract.

IBM Negotiation

  • Status (Karen, UCLA)
    Karen provided two handouts which will not be posted on the Web site since it is not secured at this time. The handouts showed the systemwide spending with IBM and what mainframe software was costing each of the campuses at this time. More discussion regarding special pricing contracts followed.
  • Action Items: Karen will keep us updated on the contract talks. Karen also requested that if we plan make any IBM purchases in the next three years, please let her know now so it can be included in the negotiations.

E-vaulting

  • Our discussion concerned options to ‘restore’ open systems and if it would be timely enough. It seems as though disaster recovery is not critical for open side at most sites. UCSB has not done a test of their environment which is all Open Systems vs. mainframe. They did interject that one out of five tapes is marginal for usage when brought back from their offsite storage. Storage bid at UCB (60TB)—high perf. Disk w/ larger disk. HDS = $900K = 65TB. Includes maintenance for three years, migration, training, financing at 0%, no lock-in on pricing.
  • Action Items: Our group needs to prepare a document that shows what services would or wouldn’t be available in the event of a disaster, and needs an agreement of what is required data at each campus. A pilot test between UCSD and UCLA/ UCOP and UCB and UCSB for e-vaulting data will commence immediately and a progress report is due at the next conference call. As part of the spreadsheet Karen is preparing, everyone needs to show offsite storage costs, disaster recovery costs, and contract end date. UCB will send links to documents on storage.
Lunch and tour of the Data Center.

Encryption

  • Tape, e-mail, other -- UCD - RFP in process to secure mobile devices; UCB - RFP to secure campus messages. UCLA is developing policies about PII data on ldap; UCB - inventory tools to help identify PII data, share audit info; UCD uses veritas for clients. Newer Sybase release has encryption, fdrencrypt on backups. how do you encrypt at the source vs. encrypt at backup.
  • Action Item: Shel will send copies to us on Personal Identity Information.

Help Desk software

  • UCD is using Remedy and is happy. Customization is hard, used for problem tickets, but also building out knowledge base; less than one FTE total for support; used security dollars as a security incident tracking tool. UCLA is using JIRA which was written for bug tracking; 30 help desks on campus are working on some. UCR is using Magic Solutions and they are happy with the tool. HEAT is used at UCOP. UCSF is a big user of Remedy. Could we use ‘pinkelephant’ to help define requirements?
  • Action Items: Identify the processes that everyone has to have - tracking problem, reporting, workflow. Need to report to ITLC on how much are we spending, what is the problem we are trying to solve. UCB - Patrick M. will send out inventory and coordinate the following: has remedy worked with UC to help us resolve licensing costs? Do we have enough licenses across UC to help all of us?

Change Management/ ITL (Patrick, UCB)

  • Infracorp conference call - show service desk scenarios.
  • Action Item: Patrick will send powerpoint, etc.

How to leverge our hardware and software purchases and maintenance

  • Further discussion regarding ITLC Huron consulting spend analysis
  • Action Item: Our group needs to recommend to ITLC the areas we can specifically help them reduce costs in if we're given resources to negotiate contracts, such as with IBM. We need to recommend priorities to the strategic sourcing group via ITLC reports to ensure attention is being applied at the right level.

Other administrative tasks

  • Action Items: The Med Center groups are meeting on the same days as we are and we need to coordinate better. Shel will report on UCSC participation at next conference call. We will attempt to move the face-to-face meetings from Fridays due to travel issues for many campuses. Mobius - Michael Yuan will follow up with Patrick Collins involvement - could other campuses use a single copy of license if we were doing evaulting or servicing the reports off of a single license?

Thanks to UCD for hosting the meeting.

Next conference call is July 8, 11 am – 1 pm. Dial-in instructions will be sent soon. The agenda for the call will be reporting back on the action items shown above.

Next face-to-face meeting is Sept. 15 at UCSD. Travel details will be sent later.

 
 
Copyright © 2007 The Regents of the University of California, All Rights Reserved. UC Joint Data Center Management Group (JDCMG)
Updated: January 26, 2010