The Web Problem l The website as it

Зарегистрируйтесь, чтобы просмотреть полный документ!

The Web Problem l The website as it stands now does not make use of the current available technology, support or security that allows two-way communication or online transactions.

Goal l Modern website supporting online transactions and two-way communication with customers.

Stakeholders l Board Members, Staff and Management l Licensees l Public l Industry Professionals (Credentialing, etc. ) l State Oversight (GITA, SPO, GAO, etc. )

Objectives l Define architecture l Obtain new website hosting solution l Prepare business process documentation and in-house design l Partner with outside vendor for online implementation (application development, interfacing with internal systems, etc. )

Define Architecture: l Options: – Self-hosting – Co-location – Managed Hosting – Shared Hosting

Architecture Options l Self-hosting: Establish web server in our own office, on our own network. – Pros: Complete control – immediate response to agency needs and changes, managed alongside our internal systems. – Cons: Complete responsibility – hardware procurement and maintenance, environmental control, physical and network security, drain on bandwidth and other resources, etc.

Architecture Options l Co-location: Provide agency-owned server in an outside vendor’s datacenter. – Pros: Nearly complete control – agency owns and operates hardware and software; vendor provides space, environmental control, physical security, network bandwidth. – Cons: Nearly complete responsibility – little or no vendor monitoring or support; response time increased due to physical distance from server; same procurement and maintenance requirements as self-hosting.

Architecture Options l Managed Hosting: Vendor supplies and maintains hardware and basic software at the vendor’s datacenter. – Pros: Flexibility of control – vendor monitors hardware, software and security 24/7; provides bandwidth, environmental controls, backup units; outsourcing expertise available on demand. – Cons: Greater monthly cost, reliance on vendor’s SLA (service level agreement).

Architecture Options l Shared Hosting: Vendor provides space on server, shared among several different “tenants. ” – Pros: Lower cost, vendor provides all basic server requirements. – Cons: Little control of anything, limited technical capabilities; competition for hardware, software, bandwidth and other resources; 3 rd party applications for other customers may reduce our uptime; our growth must also accommodate others on same web server.

Recommendation l Managed Hosting provides the best balance between cost, flexibility and maintenance responsibilities.

Objective 2 To bring the BOMEX website to a new server that offers us the ability to grow technologically while offering us the service, security and backup that we need.

Vendors Considered l IBM l ADOA l STG

Vendors Considered l IBM – Pros: Name recognition, reputation for quality, 24/7/365 monitoring and support, highest uptime, capacity for growth, outsourcing expertise, Tier 1 datacenter. – Cons: Price, flexibility.

Vendors Considered l ADOA – Pros: Price. – Cons: Incorrect software, can’t use their SQL server, questionable uptime and available resources, have to purchase hardware (would be the same as co-location without the benefits of a real co-location vendor); poor reputation.

Vendors Considered l STG – Pros: Price, security, 24/7/365 monitoring and support, high uptime, growth potential, personal service and consulting, small but professionally designed and equipped datacenter (former US West facility). – Cons: Little name recognition, smaller lower- tier vendor.

Recommendation l STG currently provides the best balance of cost, quality, and personalized service. A 12 -month contract meets immediate needs while providing future flexibility.

Design and Implementation l Two “tracks” run in parallel: Design and Implementation. – First phase’s design leads to second phase’s implementation, etc. l Process has been designed in twelve-week (quarterly) increments, to balance workload while closely monitoring progress and adjusting course as necessary.

Tracking Progress l Bi-weekly meeting to be held one day before the Executive Staff meeting. l Monthly meeting with the ED to ensure the plan is on the envisioned path. l Coordination with Web Team. l Other meetings to be held as needed.

Скачать презентацию The Web Problem l The website as it

e461e8b65ffbd7e390e3357267d29ec5.ppt

Количество слайдов: 18