Email and Electronic Calendar Review and Replacement Analysis
Background / Process
In September 2007, a committee of 25 individuals including students, faculty, staff, alumni, and
University affiliates was charged by the Vice Provost for Information Technology Services to
conduct an email and electronic calendar needs analysis for K-State. The committee was asked
to identify the critical features and functions that should be considered as the University planned
for the next generation of email and calendaring services. The committee also was asked to
engage their constituent groups in dialogue about the process and their specific needs. Thirtyfive items were identified as universally important, and these were distributed broadly in the
form of a survey. The survey allowed items to be prioritized as mandatory, highly desirable,
desirable, or no opinion. In addition, the survey gathered general comments and feedback. The
survey was completed by a total of 2,404 individuals, including 1,751 students (58%), 438
faculty (15%), 324 classified staff (11%), 412 unclassified staff (14%), and 69 other individuals
(2%).
An ITS working group was also formed to gather data on a variety of collaboration suite
services, using the needs identified from the campus-wide survey. The working group was not
asked to choose a solution or determine the importance of services and features, but to evaluate
how well various solutions met the identified needs. To provide a greater understanding of
usage, information also was gathered about the utilization of the current University email and
calendaring services, including an estimate of the number of users receiving email services from
a provider other than K-State ITS. Information describing the current email and electronic
calendaring environment at K-State is attached in Appendix A.
The ITS working group gathered data on a variety of collaboration suite products. The group
interviewed representatives, viewed presentations, and gathered data about 1) Google Apps, 2)
Microsoft Live@EDU, 3) Microsoft Exchange (hosted and local), 4) Outblaze, and 5) Zimbra
(hosted and local). These specific options were chosen because they were known to be viable
options for an enterprise implementation capable of supporting 30,000+ users, they represent a
variety of solutions in terms of local, hosted, or outsourced implementations, and the businesses
providing the products are sufficiently committed to offering this type of service or product. The
group also confirmed with K-State Legal Services there is no policy preventing the outsourcing
of email or electronic calendaring services.
Analysis of Options
The data gathered by the survey as well as the data collected by the ITS working group was
synthesized into a list of features, functions, and other technical considerations. That list was
then compared against our current email and calendaring environment, and the alternative
solutions identified above. The results of this comparison are shown in Appendix B. In
addition, the features and functions were ranked according to the responses of faculty and staff
(Appendix C), and of students (Appendix D).
There are several options which could provide email and electronic calendaring services for KState students, faculty, staff, and affiliates. There are, however, significant differences in the
level and type of services each of these solutions represents, and there considerations beyond
technical functionality. These considerations include: data ownership, flexibility in a dynamic
environment, the University’s current infrastructure and resource capacity, a single solution if
possible, and meeting the needs of the constituent groups without a significant increase in cost.
Data Ownership
There have been concerns raised about the ownership of the email and calendar data if those
services were to be provided by an entity other than K-State. Google and Micrsoft Live@Edu
are free email services, and the data hosted on their systems is owned by them. Access to
specific email or calendar data for the purposes of any internal K-State matter, for example,
would require legal action between K-State and Google or Microsoft, respectively. Outblaze,
Zimbra (hosted and local), and Microsoft Exchange (hosted and local) would allow K-State to
retain ownership of the data.
Maintaining Flexibility
The implementations of these alternative solutions vary from complete outsourcing, to vendor
hosted, to local installations. The options for outsourcing preclude K-State from ever choosing
to locally install email and calendaring services. For example, if all email accounts are moved to
Google or Microsoft Live@EDU and the K-State community is not happy with the service, there
is no other “Google” implementation. The only option is to find a completely different solution.
Zimbra and Microsoft Exchange can both be installed and hosted locally, or hosted externally,
but they are not considered a complete outsourcing solution.
University Infrastructure and Resource Capacity
K-State currently maintains approximately 40 servers in the Hale Library data center dedicated
to email, electronic calendaring, and the associated services (SPAM filtering, anti-virus, webmail
interface, etc.). This does not include the staff support of these services, and the integration
required of multiple technology solutions across the ITS organization. The opportunity to move
these services, and the associated infrastructure, to a hosted solution would create capacity
within the ITS organization to address other initiatives more effectively.
Single Solution for all Constituents, If Possible
Though it was acknowledged early in the process a single technical solution may not be possible,
there are significant advantages if all the respective needs can be met. Including not only
students, faculty, and staff, but also alumni, athletics, and associated units such as the K-State
foundation in the needs analysis, provides a unique opportunity to find a common solution. No
solution met every need, but several solutions failed to meet even the basic needs. Only Zimbra,
Google, and Microsoft Exchange met at least 50% of the features and functions identified as
critical when considering a single solution. The Zimbra solution met 89% of the identified
features and functions.
Meet Constituent Needs without Significant Increase in Cost
Comparing the options against the needs of the constituents, they ranked as follows: 1) Zimbra,
2) MS Exchange, 3) Google, 4) Live@Edu, 5) Outblaze, and 6) existing environment. In
addition to the technical and functional differences, there are significant cost differences. As
indicated in Appendix A, it is estimated K-State ITS spends $188,035 annually on email and
electronic calendaring services, which includes licensing costs and server costs associated with a
reasonable upgrade/replacement cycle. This estimate does not include general infrastructure or
staff.
The estimated costs of the proposed solutions differ considerably. The free Google option lacks
1) the functionality to integrate with the campus identity management needs; 2) some critical
calendaring functions; and 3) a number of other specific technical features. Therefore, the
Google Apps premier would be required in order to provide any reasonable level of integration
to existing campus infrastructure, and this would result in an inconsistent implementation across
all of the constituent groups. The costs to implement Google Apps Premier for faculty and staff
and free Google Apps for students, is estimated at $277,500.
Microsoft Live@EDU is only available to students. If that option were selected for students, a
different option would be required for faculty and staff, and this, again, would result in a more
complicated implementation as well as reduced integration between the various constituent
groups. The cost to implement Microsoft Exchange for faculty and staff, and Microsoft
Live@EDU for students is estimated at $83,250.
Microsoft Exchange for students, faculty, staff, and affiliates, hosted or local, is prohibitively
expensive.
Summary
Data Ownership
Maintain Flexibility (Hosted
and Local Available)
Resource Capacity - Option
for Hosted Solution
Single Solution - Option for
all Constituents
Solution Meets Constituent
Needs (N=35)
TOTAL ESTIMATED
ANNUAL COSTS
(COMPARISON)
Existing email
Outblaze
Zimbra
Google
Live@Edu
MS Exchange
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
31% (11)
37% (13)
89% (31)
63% (22)
54% (19)
71% (25)
$188,035.00
$118,230.00
$228,150.00
$277,500.00
$83,250.00
$422,250.00
K-State has the opportunity to provide a single, cost-effective, email and calendaring solution for
students, faculty, staff, alumni, and affiliates. Regardless of the solution, the business
environment related to email services is extremely dynamic. There has been a dramatic change
in the technology services environment during the last three years, resulting in new business
models. It is likely the next three to five years will bring many other significant changes, and
whichever solution is chosen by the University should provide capacity for adapting to the future
needs and demands of our constituents.
Appendix A
Current Environment - Email / Calendar Services
Kansas State University currently offers email and calendaring services to students, faculty, and staff with
a combination of technologies. In addition to services offered by ITS, several units across the University
provide email, calendar, and/or collaboration suite services to their constituents. The tables below
outlines the number of central accounts forwarded to on- and off-campus addresses, and an estimate of
the specific on-campus destination of the forwarded accounts
K-State ITS Email Accounts
Student Email Accounts
Student Email Accounts being forwarded to other KSU.EDU
address
23332
1018
4.36%
Student Email Accounts being forwarded to off-site address
3427
14.69%
Faculty/Staff Accounts
Faculty Email Accounts being forwarded to other KSU.EDU
address
5541
579
10.45%
Faculty Email Accounts being forwarded to off-site address
1321
23.84%
Total Email Accounts
28873
Email Accounts being forwarded to other KSU.EDU addresses
Email Accounts being forwarded to off-site address
Other ITS Services
579
5.53%
4748
16.44%
Faculty/Staff Calendar Accounts (Oracle)*
2000
Faculty/Staff Collaboration Suite Accounts (Groupwise)*
3000
* - included in Faculty/Staff Email Accounts
(DCE, OME, Library, Admissions, SFA)
K-State ITS Email Account On-Campus Destinations
742 vet.ksu.edu
51 housing.hounet.ksu.edu
10 salina.ksu.edu
7 listserv.ksu.edu
124 sal.ksu.edu
42 mail.sal.ksu.edu
10 eece.ksu.edu
4 esearch.grad.ksu.edu
123 phys.ksu.edu
39 humec.ksu.edu
9 housing.ksu.edu
2 union.ksun.ksu.edu
83 lib.ksu.edu
38 mail.agecon.ksu.edu
9 gmprc.ksu.edu
2 pseru.ksu.edu
81 math.ksu.edu
16 mne.ksu.edu
8 weru.ksu.edu
2 ne.ksu.edu
77 found.ksu.edu
13 bri.ksu.edu
8 union.ksu.edu
2 mailbox.cppc.ksu.edu
57 agecon.ksu.edu
11 telecom.ksu.edu
7 usgmrl.ksu.edu
2 ces.ksu.edu
Email/Collaboration Requirements version 5c
1/12/2008
Appendix B - Features and Functions Comparing Options
Survey Question
2.1 Web Accessibility (ability to access most features with any Web Browser)
2.2 Handheld/mobile accessibility and synchronization (email)
2.3 Handheld/mobile accessibility and synchronization (calendar)
MS Exchange
Outblaze
Zimbra
Hosted/Local
Microsoft
Existing e-mail
Google
Live@Edu
Hosted/Local
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Blackberry
WAP
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Not observed
Y
Y
N
Y
5GB
Y
6.3 GB / 25GB
5 GB
5GB
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y- Live Spaces
N
20MB
1 GB
2.5 Operating system independent (Unix, Linux, Mac, Windows, etc.)
Y
Y
2.6 Integrated file sharing
2.7 Integrated instant messaging
N
N
Y
N
Y/N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
2.8 Integrated personal contacts (not located on local computer)
Y - overly manual
Y
Y
2.9 Integrated task/to-do lists
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
E-mail no Calendar yes
???
Y
N
N
Y
2.11 Easily exportable (email, contacts, schedules)
Client dependent
Y - CSV, LDIF, Tab
Y
Y
Y
Y
2.12 Integrated offline client (messages can be composed & cached offline)
Client dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
2.13 Capable of defining designees
Y
Y
Y
Y - contact list
Y
Y
2.14 Easy addition of contacts from received email
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
2.15 Easy search capabilities (email/calendar)
N
Y - no body search
Y
Y
Y
Y
2.16 Easy creation of groups to share documents, update a calendar, add a group calendar to personal
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
???
???
Y
Y
Y
Client dependent
Y
Y
Y
Y - prioritize
Y
Y
2.4 Large mailbox/account storage limit
2.10 Integrated global/enterprise address list (last name, first name, eID, email, cache search, etc.)
3.1 Capable of out-of-office message/auto reply
3.2 Capable of flagging, labeling, prioritizing messages
Y - email
???
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y - external
N
Y
Y
10 MB
???
Y
Y
10 MB
10 MB
3.6 Auto archival and retrieval process
N
???
Y
N
N
N
3.7 Capable of sending encrypted messages (secure)
N
???
N
N
N
N
3.8 Customizable filters/rules for message management
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
3.9 Grammar check
N
N
N - requested
N
N
N
3.10 Copying of screen prints into an e-mail
N
N
Y
N
N
N
3.11 Capable of threading messages
N
N
Y
N
N
???
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
???
N - requested
N
N
Y
3.3 Customized creation of folders with nesting capabilities
3.4 Customizable spam filter (block senders, safe senders, etc.)
3.5 Capable of sending/receiving large file attachments (up to 15 MB)
3.12 Capable of maintaining existing email addresses & domains
3.13 Capable of recalling a sent email
N
4.1 Customizable calendar access control capabilities (full, read only, no access, etc.)
Y
Y
Y
Y - contact list
Y
Y
4.2 Resource scheduling
Y
Assumed
Y
Y
N
Y
N
4.3 Integrated with campus calendar system (ability to "add event" to personal calendar)
N
Not observed
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
4.4 Integrated functionality between email and calendar ("add to calendar" option in emails)
Y
N
Y
4.5 Capable of viewing simultaneous calendars (several personal calendars at once)
Y
Y - defined groups
Y
Y - shared/layered
N
Y
Y
Not observed
Y
Y
11
13
Y
31
Y - notice
Number of Features/Functions Met (N=35)
Technical issues / constraints / migration
22
19
25
Allows maintaining ownership of data
Provides an exit strategy that maintains the user experience
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
4.6 Capable of sending a meeting notice/alert
Primary Business is E-mail
N
Y
Y
N
N
Owns E-mail Software; Not a Reseller
Y
Y
Y - community driven
Y
Y
Y
System level mailbox migration
n/a
???
Y
Y
N
N/Y
System level address book migration
n/a
???
Y
N
N
N/Y
Oracle calendar content migration
n/a
???
Y
N
N
N/Y
Distribution list migration
n/a
???
Y
N
N
N
User definable groups
Y
???
Y
Y
Y
Y
System definable groups
N
???
Y
N
N
Y
N
???
n/a
N
n/a
N
n/a
N
Y
N
N/Y
N
Shared groups
Ultilizes same authenitcation system as an address book for Live @ Edu and Exchange
n/a
Utilizes same groups for both Live @ Edu and Exchange
Security, Backup and Recovery - Fault Tolerance Mechanisms
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
N
Y
???
Y
Y
Y
Individual file recovery
???
???
Y
N
N
N
N/Y
N
Y
Y - 9 Million Hosted
Y
Y - 150M+
N - 60,000+
Collaboration Features/Functions
> 5 million mail boxes hosted
Email_CalendarReplacement_SummaryData(1).xls
Page 1 of 2
Email/Collaboration Requirements version 5c
1/12/2008
Appendix B - Features and Functions Comparing Options
MS Exchange
Existing e-mail
Outblaze
Zimbra
Hosted/Local
Microsoft
Survey Question
Antivirus protection
Google
Live@Edu
Hosted/Local
Y- external
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Account expiration
Never
???
Y
N
N
N
Import existing e-mail
???
Y
N
N
N
Import existing address books
Y - individual
Y
Y - CSV
Y
N
Import existing mailing lists (contact lists)
Y - individual
Y
Y - CSV
Y
N
???
Limits
Y
Y
N
N
Y/N
Y - 500
None
None
Email quota limits
n/a
Can use local LDAP as an address book
???
Y - Can set
Y
Message recipient limits
???
Y
Calendar Requirements
Individual calendar
Group calendar
Y - not integrated
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Shared
Y
Y
Y
Public
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Enterprise calendar
N
Y
???
Integration of distribution lists & calendaring
N
N
Portal/Collaboration Requirements
Customizable Web Interface
N
Y
Y
N
Y - Live Spaces
Y
File Sharing
N
Y
Y
Y
Y - Live Spaces
Y
Web Publishing
Y- externally
Y
Y
N
Y - Live Spaces
?
Message Boards
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Portal integration features
N
Y
Y
Pass-through
Y
Branded or co-branded interface
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y - external
Y
Y
N
Y - Live Spaces
Y/N
Personal web spaces
N
Y
Y
Y - APIs
Y - APIs
Y
Removal of advertisements
Authentication integration (single sign-on)
n/a
Y
Y
N/Y
N
Y
Secure logins
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y - then open
Y
Blog
N
???
Y
N
Y
Y/N
Y
???
Y
Y - not intuitive
Y
Y
Y - externally
???
Y
???
Y
Y
Online Help
FERPA restrictions observed
Polling/Survey
Cost per person - annual - alumni
Cost per person - annual - students
Cost per person - annual - faculty
User controllable alerts
Campus community alerts
Oracle Calendar - 3 year refresh (licences, maint., support) - 2000 licenses
Groupwise (3,000 licenses)
ESTIMATED cost (CURRENT SOLUTIONS)
___Email 28,125
___Calendar 2,000
___CollaborationSuite 3,000
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Existing e-mail
Outblaze
Zimbra
Google
MS - Live@Edu
MS Exchange
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
N
N
$13.43
$25.60
$4.20
$4.20
$4.20
E-mail
???
n/a
n/a
$0.00/$0.75
$1.50/$1.50
$35.00/$8.00
Y
Y
n/a
n/a
$0.00
$0.00
Apps $0 / Premier $50
Y - Mail
N
n/a
n/a
$0.00
$0.00
N/A
Y
N
n/a
n/a
$7 to $15/$4.00
$7 to $15/$4.00
$7 to $15/$4.00
N
N
n/a
n/a
$23,310.00
$94,920.00
$194,250.00
$33,900.00
(Premier- Fac/Staff)
$277,500.00
$0.00
$83,250.00
$0.00
$83,250.00
$339,000.00
$118,230.00
$228,150.00
$277,500.00
$83,250.00
$422,250.00
$21,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$75,000.00
$84,375.00
$26,860.00
$76,800.00
ESTIMATED cost (PROPOSED SOLUTIONS)
___CollaborationSuite Faculty/Staff 5,550
___CollaborationSuite Students 22,600
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS (COMPARISON)
___CollaborationSuite Alumni 5,000
Email_CalendarReplacement_SummaryData(1).xls
$188,035.00
Page 2 of 2
Appendix C - Needs Analyis Survey Results - Faculty/Staff Ranked
Microsoft
MS Exchange
Outblaze
Zimbra
Hosted/Local
Google
Existing e-mail
Apps
Live@Edu
Hosted/Local
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y - external
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Capable of sending/receiving large file attachments (up to 15 MB)
10 MB
???
Y
20 MB
10 MB
10 MB
2.4
Large mailbox/account storage limit
20MB
1 GB
5 GB
6.3 GB / 25GB
5 GB
5GB
3.6
Auto archival and retrieval process
N
???
Y
N
N
N
6
2.15
Easy search capabilities (email/calendar)
N
Y - no body search
Y
Y
Y
Y
7
3.3
Customized creation of folders with nesting capabilities
Y - email
Faculty/Staff Rank
Survey Number
Survey Question
1
2.1
Web accessibility (ability to access most features with any Web Browser)
2
3.4
Customizable spam filter (block senders, safe senders, etc.)
3
3.5
4
5
???
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
8
2.14
Easy addition of contacts from received email
N
Y
3.12
Capable of maintaining existing email addresses & domains
Y
???
Y
Y - confirm
N
9
Y
Y
Y
10
3.13
Capable of recalling a sent email
N
???
N - requested
N
N
Y
11
2.11
Easily exportable (email, contacts, schedules)
Client dependent
Y - CSV, LDIF, Tab
Y
N
Y
Y
12
3.7
Capable of sending encrypted messages (secure)
N
Not observed
N
N
N
13
2.8
Integrated personal contacts (not located on local computer)
Y
Y
N
Y
Y - overly manual
Y
Y
14
3.8
Customizable filters/rules for message management
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
15
2.16
Easy creation of groups to share documents, update a calendar, add a group calendar to personal
N
???
Y
N
N
Y
16
4.6
Capable of sending a meeting notice/alert
Y
Not observed
Y
Y - notice
Y
Y
17
3.9
Grammar check
N
N
18
3.1
Capable of out-of-office message/auto reply
19
2.10
Integrated global/enterprise address list (last name, first name, eID, email, cache search, etc.)
20
2.12
Integrated offline client (messages can be composed & cached offline)
21
2.6
Integrated file sharing
22
4.1
23
N
???
N - requested
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
E-mail no Calendar
???
Y
N
N
Y
Client dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Y
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Y
Y-LiveSpaces
N
Y
Y
Y - contact list
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Customizable calendar access control capabilities (full, read only, no access, etc.)
N
Y
Y
4.4
Integrated functionality between email and calendar ("add to calendar" option in emails)
N
Y
24
3.2
Capable of flagging, labeling, prioritizing messages
Client dependent
Y
Y
Y
Y - prioritize
Y
25
4.2
Resource scheduling
Y
Assumed
Y
Y
N
Y
26
3.10
Copying of screen prints into an e-mail
N
N
Y
N
N
N
27
3.11
Capable of threading messages
N
N
N
N
Operating system independent (Unix, Linux, Mac, Windows, etc.)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Not observed
Y
N
N
N
28
2.5
29
4.3
Integrated with campus calendar system (ability to "add event" to personal calendar)
30
4.5
Capable of viewing simultaneous calendars (several personal calendars at once)
Y
Y - defined groups
Y
Y - shared/layered
N
Y
31
2.3
Handheld/mobile accessibility and synchronization (calendar)
N
Not observed
Y
Y
N
Y
32
2.2
Handheld/mobile accessibility and synchronization (email)
Blackberry
WAP
Y
Y
Y
Y
33
2.9
Integrated task/to-do lists
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
34
2.7
Integrated instant messaging
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y/N
35
2.13
Capable of defining designees
Y
Y
Y
Y - contact list
Y
Y
Appendix D - Needs Analyis Survey Results - Student Ranked
Student Rank
Survey Number
Survey Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
2.1
Web accessibility (ability to access most features with any Web Browser)
3.5
Capable of sending/receiving large file attachments (up to 15 MB)
2.14
Easy addition of contacts from received email
3.4
Customizable spam filter (block senders, safe senders, etc.)
3.13
Capable of recalling a sent email
2.4
Large mailbox/account storage limit
2.15
3.9
Microsoft
MS Exchange
Outblaze
Zimbra
Hosted/Local
Google
Existing e-mail
Apps
Live@Edu
Hosted/Local
Y
10 MB
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
???
Y
20 MB
10 MB
10 MB
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y - external
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
???
N - requested
N
N
Y
20MB
1 GB
5 GB
6.3 GB / 25GB
5 GB
5GB
Easy search capabilities (email/calendar)
N
Y - no body search
Y
Y
Y
Y
Grammar check
N
N
N - requested
N
N
N
???
N
3.6
Auto archival and retrieval process
N
N
Capable of maintaining existing email addresses & domains
Y
???
Y
Y - confirm
N
3.12
Y
Y
Y
3.3
Customized creation of folders with nesting capabilities
Y - email
???
Y
N
Y
Y
2.11
Easily exportable (email, contacts, schedules)
Client dependent
Y - CSV, LDIF, Tab
Y
Y
Integrated personal contacts (not located on local computer)
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
2.8
Y - overly manual
Y
Y
N
3.7
Capable of sending encrypted messages (secure)
N
Not observed
N
N
N
3.11
Capable of threading messages
N
N
Y
N
N
2.6
Integrated file sharing
Y
Y
Y
Y-LiveSpaces
N
2.12
Integrated offline client (messages can be composed & cached offline)
3.8
N
Client dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Client Dependent
Customizable filters/rules for message management
Y
Y
Y
N
3.2
Capable of flagging, labeling, prioritizing messages
Y
Y
Y
Y
Client dependent
Y
Y - prioritize
Y
2.16
Easy creation of groups to share documents, update a calendar, add a group calendar to personal
N
???
Y
N
N
Y
4.3
Integrated with campus calendar system (ability to "add event" to personal calendar)
N
Not observed
Y
N
N
N
4.6
Capable of sending a meeting notice/alert
Y
Not observed
Y
Y - notice
Y
Y
2.10
Integrated global/enterprise address list (last name, first name, eID, email, cache search, etc.)
E-mail no Calendar
???
N
N
Y
2.5
Operating system independent (Unix, Linux, Mac, Windows, etc.)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
4.4
Integrated functionality between email and calendar ("add to calendar" option in emails)
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
3.10
Copying of screen prints into an e-mail
N
N
Y
N
N
N
4.2
Resource scheduling
Y
Assumed
Y
Y
N
Y
Integrated task/to-do lists
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
4.5
Capable of viewing simultaneous calendars (several personal calendars at once)
Y
Y - defined groups
Y
Y - shared/layered
N
Y
4.1
Customizable calendar access control capabilities (full, read only, no access, etc.)
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Capable of out-of-office message/auto reply
Y
???
Y - contact list
3.1
Y
Y
Y
2.7
Integrated instant messaging
Y/N
2.2
Handheld/mobile accessibility and synchronization (email)
2.3
2.13
2.9
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Blackberry
WAP
Y
Y
Y
Y
Handheld/mobile accessibility and synchronization (calendar)
N
Not observed
Y
Y
N
Y
Capable of defining designees
Y
Y
Y
Y - contact list
Y
Y