Systems
Administration
Sub-Committee
Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability
For Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Committee Membership
 Brett McKeachnie (Chair)
 IT Systems Administration
 Darel Hawkins
 IT Center for Student Computing
 Kevin Young
 School of Technology and Computing
 Mike Duffin
 IT Automation and Integration
 Kurtis Olsen
 Telephone Services
 Gerald Bunker
 IT HelpDesk
 Daniel Hutchison
 IT Systems Administration
Mission, Scope, and Responsibilities
The Systems Administration Sub-Committee exists to
evaluate and recommend criteria for Best Practices,
Strategic Directions, and Interoperability of Technology
Systems at UVU. The scope of the committee includes
decisions and recommendations regarding Hardware,
Operating Systems, Data Storage, Backups, and Critical
Application Level Software. The responsibilities of the
committee include the development and implementation
of PBA initiatives that support the IT Strategic Directions,
the development of accountability measures, and the
evaluation of outcomes.
Department Personnel
Systems Administration
 Brett McKeachnie
 Roark Fisher
 Daniel Hutchison
 Ted Blaney
 Paul Nuffer
 Alan Castle
Automation & Integration
 Mike Duffin
 Chris Jones
 Dave Nielsen
 Wayne Wilson
 Landon Conover
 Brett Partridge
Competencies
 Servers (Hardware, Operating Systems)
 Systems (Automation, Integration, Design, Security)
 Data Storage (Performance, Allocation)
 Disaster Recovery (Backups, Replication)
 Data Center Resources (Needs, Access)
 Making it all “work together, work right, work even
when parts of it fail”
(http://www.sysadminday.com/whatsysadmin.html)
Vision
A robust systems environment and
ecosystem that is flexible and customer
oriented, that provides security and
resiliency, that simplifies integration and
masks complexity, and that is fiscally and
environmentally efficient.
Guiding Values
 Customer Service
 Best Practices
 Flexibility
 Efficiency
 Collaboration
 Robustness
 Best Effort
 Reliability through
stability
Challenges
Growth in demand for services and systems has
not been matched by growth in employee
headcount – Need more people and to keep the
people we have.
 Operating under a historical paradigm which
includes structural (training, mindshare,
infrastructure) dependencies upon specific
technologies that are becoming less capable of
meeting the demands of our users – Need a
paradigm shift.

Agenda
 SWOT Analysis
 Cost Reductions
 Urgent Needs
 Pain Points
 Strategic Planning
 Requests
SWOT Analysis: Strengths
 Team (quality people)
 Identity Management System
 Hardware (largely new or newer)
 Centralization/Core (efficiency)
 New Data Center
 Internal Communication (within IT)
SWOT Analysis: Weaknesses
 Microsoft Training/Experience
 Apple Training/Experience
 User Communication
 User Training
 Staff Numbers
 Support for Mobile Devices
 Disaster Recovery
 Documentation
SWOT Analysis: Opportunities
 Centralize in DLC
 Virtualization - Server
 Virtualization - Desktop
 Linux / Open Source Software
 Disaster Recovery Equipment Grant
SWOT Analysis: Threats
 Novell Dependencies
 User Demands
 Phishing/MalWare
 Funding
 Apathy/Lack of Participation
 User Security Training
Cost Reductions?
 Outsource?
 Cloud?
 Software Licensing?
 Virtualize Servers
 Virtualize Secure Servers
 Virtualize Desktops
 Transfer Servers to DLC Data Center
Urgent Needs
 Automation and Integration Staff
 Disaster Recovery Equipment
 Progress is being made
• Banner database and app server in Richfield
 Needed
• Off-Site Backup
• Disk Space Usage Reduction
• Improved Data Transfer to Richfield
• Critical Systems/Processing for Emergencies (Virtualized)
• Communications
• Urgent Financial Needs
Pain Points
AKA
“What Keeps Brett Up at Night”
 Can't Get Enough Done
 Possible Loss of Key Staff
 Novell
 Company Policies / Relationships
 Future Directions / Questionable Viability
 User/Administration Perceptions/Support
Strategic Planning
 Microsoft (Discovery, Training, Planning)
 Disaster Recovery (Planning, Equipment)
 Use DLC Data Center (Increase Efficiency)
Microsoft
 Proactive Discovery Process to Determine
 Costs of Changing
 Benefits to be Gained
 Pitfalls to Avoid and/or Be Aware Of
 Methods to Employ
 Changes Required
What do we expect to learn?
 Costs – Financially Expensive (Licensing,
Support), Migration Costly if Consultants are Used,
Need More Administrators, More Servers, Lots of
Training Required, Time Investment, Parallel
Deployment, Major Adjustments to IDM Systems
 Benefits – Increased Integration with 3rd Party
Systems and Devices, Market Share (Easy to Find
Help and Training)
What do we expect to learn?
 Pitfalls – Not a Panacea, Trade One Set of Problems
for Another, Systems Can Get Very Large, Compliance
Issues, More Exploits (Market Share)
 Methods – Many Best Practices, Different Paradigms
(Adapt Our Thinking), Adjust to Different Strengths &
Weaknesses
 Changes – Few Visible Differences, E-Mail Client
Change (Expect Detractors),
Administration/Management Completely Different,
Numerous Additional Systems Possible (SharePoint)
Why Not Novell?
 Policies
 Maintenance Required for Patches
 Maintenance Required for
KnowledgeBase
 ShareHolders / Board Short
Sighted – Looking for Buyout?
 Development Moved Offshore
 Prices Increasing, Despite Market
Share and Economy
 Premium Attitude, Inferior Products
 Wait for partners to build solutions,
then re-invent the solution to sell,
putting partners out of business
 Support
 Quality Poor / Finger Pointing
 OffShore (Language/Culture
Barrier)
 Knowledgebase Constantly
Changing, Difficult to Find Answers
 Products
 Quality Poor
 Require Patches for Functionality
 Reduced Features in New Versions
 Integration of Systems and Devices
Difficult
 Partners (and some Novell
Products) Delayed or Refused
Support for Linux – Left Market
 Future
 Important Partners Leaving
 Customers Leaving
 Market Share / Mind Share
 Difficult to Get Training
 Difficult to Find Experienced Help
 Constant Rumors about Future
 Changes/Improvements?
 “Too Little Too Late” –Joe Martin
Why Not Apple, Linux, or SUN?
 Don’t Scale for Windows and MAC Clients
 No Collaboration Suite Available
 Similar to Novell’s Lack of Integration
Why Microsoft?
 Market Share / Mind Share
 Easy To Find Trained Help
 Any Problem We Have, Many More Also Have
 Same Benefits Achieved in Move to Cisco from Alcatel
 Integration
 Mobile Devices
 Enterprise Systems
 Extensive Partner Network
 Administration Support
 “Why haven’t we moved to Microsoft yet?”
 “When are we going to move to Microsoft?”
 “If we were on Microsoft, my <product> would work.”
Questions
 Is This Just An Emotional Reaction?
 No. We can plan now, or we can try to figure it out under
pressure if/when it’s required.
 Won’t This Be Expensive?
 Yes. But we don’t yet know how much it will cost. That’s one
of the things we need to learn.
 Won’t This Be a Very Difficult and Problematic Move?
 Yes. That’s why we need to plan.
 Are We For Sure Moving to Microsoft?
 No. We want to investigate, learn, plan and budget to
determine if it’s the right move for UVU.
 When Would We Make This Change?
 Guessing, I’d say 3 to 5 years to prepare and move.
Disaster Recovery
 Data De-Duplication Devices (Orem & Richfield)
 Off-site backup
 Improved disk space usage
 Improved data transfer between sites
 VMWare Host(s) at Richfield
 Web Server
 Critical Services/Processing (Payroll, Purchasing)
 Emergency E-Mail System, etc.
Data Center Usage
 No financial costs
 Create a single point of contact empowered to help
departments move in.
 This is in progress in Infrastructure Services
Requests
 Ongoing Funding
 Positions
• Systems Administrator – AIS
• Application Administrator – VMWare
• Systems Specialist – AIS
 Equity/Career Ladder Upgrades
• Alan, Chris, Dave, Paul
 One Time Funding
 Disaster Recovery Equipment ($250,000)
 Microsoft Discovery/Training/Planning ($30,000)
Summary/Conclusion
 We
 Add value by creating systems that work better, meet our
unique needs, and help people do their jobs more
efficiently.
 Need help in the form of positions in the AIS Department
and equity funding so we can keep key employees.
 Need to put some basic DR equipment in place to
augment the systems we have been granted – A basic
infrastructure we can build upon.
 Need to look seriously at alternatives to Novell
technologies, so we have a plan to meet our needs, come
what may.
The End