Project Name Document Version 1.0 Prepared by Jane Doe, ITS Last Edited July 23, 2016 PLAN REQUIREMENTS SOLUTION ANALYSIS DESIGN BUILD TEST TRAIN/DEPLOY MAINTENANCE TO THE DOCUMENT OWNER: This template is provided as a guideline and resource. The structure and instructions give detail about what might go into a completed document. Only you and your team, however, know what will best fit the needs of your specific effort, and you are encouraged to adapt the template as appropriate to meet those needs. Research Summary The Research Summary provides an overview of the research and data gathered for the project, as well as the recommendations that should be used to guide the project. The Research Summary will be used to present the research methodology and results to project stakeholders for approval of recommended action items. For solution evaluations, the goal of the Research Summary is to narrow the field of solution options through high-level research and recommend a small set of options for more detailed evaluation; see the Product Selection Methodology at http://www.utexas.edu/its/projects/selection.php, and consult management for additional expectations. Executive Summary Provide the top 3-5 take-away points, results, or recommendations across all the research performed. Include the research methods that led to each recommendation. Research Summary and Results Include a description of the goals of the research and the reasons behind the methods that were chosen. For each research method used, document the most important take-away points or results. Surveys Surveys can be used to gather information from existing and potential customers, users of a product or technology at other universities, etc. Focus Groups Focus groups may be used to elicit feedback, emerging needs, and other information from stakeholders, system users, and support personnel. Interviews Individual or small group interviews may be particularly effective with key users and stakeholders or with experts in the area under review. Page 1 of 3 Project Name Document Version 1.0 Internal Benchmarking Are there other groups at the university that have created a solution for this problem? What can be learned from these efforts? Initial queries may be directed to the it-talk and txedge mailing lists, as well as to targeted departments and user groups. Peer Institution Benchmarking What do peer institutions have to say about the project? Do they have experience with similar efforts, products, or technologies? Peer institution benchmarking, including responses from at least 3-4 universities, is expected for solution evaluations. The list of the university's peer institutions is available at http://www.utexas.edu/academic/ima/ngc. Historical Data Has this been tried before, at UT Austin or elsewhere? If so, what lessons have been learned from those efforts? Info-Tech Review What does industry research say about the challenge? This type of research can be used to identify potential products, technology trends, and alternative approaches to the project. Peer Journal Review Has the research subject been discussed in a journal such as Educause Quarterly? Journal publications can provide, for example, details on attempts to address similar problems. System Performance Data What support metrics are available? Can information from a system currently in use provide insight into changing usage patterns, bottlenecks, peaks, etc.? User Interface Testing Methods such as card sorts, wireframe testing, etc. may be used to elicit feedback on design, business processes, and workflow. Comparative Analysis For solution evaluations, a comparative analysis of available products and/or services is required. Details such as technical compatibility, implementation cost, licensing and support options, implementation timeframe, maintenance costs, and distinguishing factors should be included. Additionally, the comparative analysis should include evaluation requirements, a sub-set of the project requirements consisting of "show stoppers" without which a given solution would not be considered viable -- for example, financial or technological constraints, or core functionality. Some general criteria for comparative review include: Research Summary Page 2 of 3 Project Name Document Version 1.0 Will the system be hosted on campus or externally? If the system is hosted externally, which oncampus systems will it need to integrate with (e.g., identity management, authentication, monitoring) and how will it do so? Will any changes or upgrades be required to on-campus systems to integrate with the new system? Will the system store sensitive data, including logs? If so, are the appropriate security measures in place? Can the system's data be exported, for example, for sharing with another system? Will new skills be required by university personnel to use or manage the system? How will these skills be acquired? For an example solution assessment matrix, see the Appendix of the Centralized Authentication System Assessment (CASA) Research Summary: https://www.utexas.edu/its/casa/governance/protected/CASA%20Research%20Summary%20and%20Re commendations_v1_1.pdf Recommendations and Next Steps Describe the overall recommendations which have been determined from the research and outline next steps. For solution evaluations, the recommendations should include narrowing the options to a small subset, such as 2-4 solutions, that can be reviewed in more detail. Appendix Include detailed research results as appropriate. Revision History Version Date V1 Research Summary Updater Name Description Initial draft completed. Page 3 of 3