Roll Your Own Panel Discussion CUMREC 2000 Arlington

Roll Your Own Panel Discussion CUMREC 2000 Arlington, Virginia May 2000

Panelists w Bill Shirey • Manager of Student Systems • University of Washington (UW) w Ken Servis • Dean of Academic Records & Registrar • University of Southern California (USC) w Audrey Lindsay • Associate Registrar, Director Student Systems • University of British Columbia (UBC)

Purpose of Presentation Discuss key benefits and issues associated with custom systems w Opportunity for sharing among panel and audience w

Project Status - UW w w w Public; full research; 3 campuses; enrollment 40, 000 Platform: Unisys mainframe; NT/IIS; Unix Vendors: Intervoice Brite; DARS; CSS System / Project Overview: • Mature integrated mainframe/COBOL core • NT/IIS front-end for web What’s Next: • Web registration; webify everything • Transfer articulation; CAS

Project Status - USC w w w Public; full research; enrollment 28, 000 Platform: IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, PI/Open, Universe DBMS Vendors: DARS-TCA, Spectria, DAG, Ad Astra System / Project Overview: • SIS in PI/Open converted to IBM AIX in 1996 • Download data to server for WWW • Vendor packages integrated(DARS) and peripheral(DAG) What’s Next: Web registration and schedule builder, Web grade book

Project Status - UBC Public, full research, 35, 500 w Platform: Sun Solaris, Oracle, BEA w Vendors: DAG, Ad Astra w System /Project Overview: w • conversion 6/98, custom 6/98 & ongoing • Java, delivered over the Internet • packages totally integrated into the system w Next: publications, scheduling, awards

Key topics w Why Custom? • When does it make sense to go custom? • What do you need? w Costs • Higher, lower or configured differently? w Staffing • Anything special, keeping up-to-date w Vendor Relationships • All of us have some vendor components

1. Why Custom -UW The integrated legacy system is working w Client/Server wasn’t viable at UW w No time or money for acquisition w

Why Custom -USC w w w To satisfy special needs. To better tie into existing legacy system. Off-the-shelf package does not meet design requirements. Faster customization and better integration. Limited time and resources to go through the whole software procurement process.

Why Custom -UBC Tight timelines w Packages didn’t meet vision w 30 years of successful custom SIS projects w Cost effective to re-use components w

2. Project Costs Do packages provide more for the money? w Are packages cheaper and easier to install? w Training and roll-out costs w Maintenance costs w

Project Costs - USC Package may not provide more for money. w Vendor package developed on the same platform often cheaper & easily integrated. w Staff buy in not a problem with custom software. w Maintenance cost of vendor packages high. w

Project Costs - UBC w w w $5 M budget over 3. 5 years Funded project by borrowing against future operating savings Combination of consultants & internal technical staff Decline in the Canadian Dollar Annual development, support and equipment budget of 1. 8 M

3. Staffing levels w Staffing skill set w Motivation & retention of current staff w • Monetary and non-monetary w Vacancies and hiring new staff • Impact on project timelines, coping w Training

Staffing - UW 10 programmer/analysts for SIS w Very experienced team core w Retention challenge w • Salaries in the shadow of Microsoft, etc. • IS staff not part of user organization • Recognition, personal growth w Hiring challenge • COBOL, Unisys

Staffing - USC 15 Staff for maintenance and development w Varied programming environment w Motivation w • Integration of new technologies • Mentors and challenging projects • Telecommuting and Flexible hours w Very difficult to find experienced programmers in PI/Open platform • Limited time and budget for training

Staffing -UBC 14 staff for development & maintenance w Research-type IT staff w Small team synergy and communication w Motivation w • • Salaries well below market One-time honorarium, Salary increases Challenge, responsibility, pride, praise Flex time, tele-commuting

4. Vendor Relationships All have some vendor components w Special relationships w Tools versus deliverables w

Vendor Relationships - UW w Components • DARS • CSS - INAS, PARS • College. Net - Schedule 25/Resource 25 w Tools • Inter. Voice Brite: Write-1 IVR

Vendor Relationships - USC w Components • Ad Astra, DARS-TCA, DAG w Project Consulting • Spectria w Development Partners • Touch. Net

Vendor Relationships - UBC w Components • DAG, Ad Astra w Tools • SUN, BEA w Development Partners • Sierra Systems Inc. • Ad Astra

Questions? Key areas w Custom decision w Costs w Staffing w Vendor relationships Or other areas w Project scope w Integration w Risk management w Timelines w Communication w BPR