Get documents about "Email Architecture SWAT Comm Final Report
Document Sample
Missouri Adaptive Enterprise
Architecture
E-mail S.W.A.T. Committee
E-mail Consolidation
Technical Report and Business
Case/Impact Analysis
Final Report
December 19, 2003
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 3
Overview..................................................................................................................................... 4
Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 6
Platform Overview ...................................................................................................................... 7
Architecture Model Overview .................................................................................................... 10
Centralized/Consolidated (Homogeneous) System
Decentralized/Heterogeneous System
Business Case/Impact Analysis ................................................................................................ 14
Methodology
Appendix A - Architecture Documents ..........................................................................................
Technology Area
Directory Services
Email Architecture
Compliance Components
Email Server System Design
Email Protocols
Web-based Email Access
Calendaring and Scheduling System Design
Appendix B - Agency Survey ........................................................................................................
Survey Questions
Appendix C - Vendor Packet .........................................................................................................
Vendor Packet
Lotus Response
Microsoft Response
Novell Response
Appendix D - Business Case/Impact Analysis ...............................................................................
Detailed Cost Information
Annualized expenditure figures
Charts and pictures
Appendix E - University of Missouri Information
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
The E-mail Architecture S.W.A.T. (Structured Work Architecture Team) Committee has worked over the past
six months to analyze and document the state's E-mail architecture in cooperation with the Missouri
Adaptive Enterprise Architecture effort. Additionally, the Committee was charged with developing a business
case/impact analysis if the state were to move to a consolidated E-mail platform. The Committee analyzed
the benefits and impact of a number of architectural models, two of which are presented in this report.
The first architectural model is a group of distributed Email systems administered by individual agencies, a
model which most closely represents the current State of Missouri environment. It is defined by its
decentralized approach to E-mail. Each agency implements the E-mail product that they have determined to
best fit their operational needs. Configuration, installation, administration, and operation of the systems and
December 19, 2003 Page 2 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
the user clients are all performed at the agency level. Interaction of the various email systems is
accomplished through standard protocols and gateways.
The second architectural model is a consolidated and centrally administered E-mail system. This is a
geographically consolidated E-mail system which could be built on any of the platforms reviewed by the
Committee (Lotus Notes, Microsoft Exchange, or Novell GroupWise).
The centralized model would provide an E-mail system with a common look and feel for all state personnel.
Then, with all personnel on the same E-mail system there would be few compatibility issues and the major
technical barrier to interagency calendaring/scheduling would be removed. Configuration, installation,
administration, and operation at the system level would be performed by a central agency, with several
options for user clients.
Recommendations
Based on the Committee's research and analysis, a short-term recommendation is offered that the state
keep the existing decentralized systems as they are now, as this is the lowest cost, lowest impact short-term
solution. Arguments that a centralized system would necessarily be cheaper in the long-term are not
entirely persuasive in our environment. Any agency not currently using Microsoft Exchange, Novell
GroupWise, or Lotus Notes should be encouraged to migrate to one of these platforms the next time they
upgrade.
The Office of Administration should house a Global directory and LDAP servers to provide global address
capabilities for all agencies. All agencies should be encouraged to participate in providing address
information to the Office of Administration. In the near future, the major three platforms will be able to
communicate with each other and meet all requested functional requirements, especially with the maturity of
Internet calendaring (ICAL) standards.
If the decision were made to proceed with a centralized E-mail solution, the Committee recommends the
formation of a dedicated project team to conduct detailed network and risk analyses. Due to the complex
nature of such a migration, and the significant impact on mission critical business operations, the team
should also be responsible for developing a detailed project plan to manage the migration. Additionally, each
vendor would likely (as one already has) offer better initial license pricing than is normally available on
contract, thus competitive bidding in accordance with additional architecture compliance component
documents detailing additional functional requirements would be appropriate.
There are a number of benefits to retaining our current E-mail architecture and systems. The primary
benefits are its stable functionality and its inherent resistance to widespread outages, ability to meet
specific agency functional requirements, and the fact that it is scaled to perform on our existing network
infrastructure. Deploying servers near end users reduces the number of intermediate points of failure and
reduces the number of users affected by an outage. A distributed system is less susceptible to many
attacks intended to disrupt service. Additionally, state employees already have a working knowledge of
their respective current client product, and discarding such experience will impact their current level of
productivity, at least in the short-term. Finally, since much of the message traffic generated is
intradepartmental, a distributed solution also maintains current bandwidth requirements. Additional
bandwidth is usually expensive and represents an ongoing cost.
OVERVIEW
In May 2003 an E-mail Architecture S.W.A.T. (Structured Work Architecture Team) Committee
(Committee) was formed as part of the Missouri Adaptive Enterprise Architecture (MAEA) program
under the auspices of the Missouri Office of Information Technology (OIT). The Committee was
charged with three primary tasks; 1) document the existing electronic mail (E-mail) and
December 19, 2003 Page 3 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
calendaring/scheduling systems used within state government in compliance with the document
templates set forth by the MAEA program, 2) develop a business case/impact analysis if the state were
to move to a consolidated E-mail and calendaring/scheduling platform, and 3) determine a way to
satisfy the following business requirements:
Agency personnel must be able to use a single global email address list to send email to another
state employee, whether the employee works in the same agency or not.
Appropriate personnel should be able to send an email to every state employee with an active
email account.
Agency personnel must be able to see the free/busy time of another state employee in another
agency.
Agency personnel must be able to create a meeting event, invite another attendee from another
state agency, and have the meeting automatically populate the invitee's calendar upon
acceptance of the meeting request.
In June 2003, the Committee developed and distributed a survey to state agencies in an effort to obtain
information pertaining to the E-mail and calendaring/scheduling systems currently in production. The
Committee used the survey information provided by the state agencies to analyze and develop a better
understanding of the state's patterns, volumes, and usage of E-mail and calendaring/scheduling
functionality.
From the analysis of the agencies survey responses, the Committee developed a vendor packet with
pertinent aggregated information related to current E-mail and calendaring/scheduling systems and
presented these findings to the vendor community. The vendor packet was not an official state issued
Request for Information (RFI), however a similar procedure for vendor communication was employed to
ensure process integrity and provide consistent communication and information to all participating
vendors. The vendors were asked to review the information and provide responses as to the potential
benefits and impacts associated with a statewide consolidation of E-mail systems based on different
possible architectural models.
The Committee conducted further analysis based upon the information provided by the vendor
community as it relates to the technical architectural benefits and issues associated with
consolidating E-mail and calendaring/scheduling systems. The following report contains
detailed information regarding the methodology and process used during the Committee's
analysis and development of findings and recommendations related to E-mail
consolidation.FINDINGS
Depending upon the assumptions used in the analysis of the financial impact of an E-mail
consolidation, significant hard dollar savings may not be realized, and in fact, significant
expenditures may be required to complete a statewide E-mail system consolidation scaled to
meet the needs of the agencies.
The opportunity to provide significant FTE reductions seems to be virtually non-existent, as the
majority of the FTE required for administrative duties are not dedicated solely to E-mail
administration. The administrative responsibility is commonly shared among agency FTE and
all have additional duties within the agency.
The majority of administrative duties for an E-mail system are related to the maintenance of user
accounts (e.g. setup, modification, deletion). This workload is inherent in the E-mail systems
functionality and is independent of the architectural model or platform selected.
December 19, 2003 Page 4 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Not all agencies are created equal, in purpose or in function. Agencies have different policies and
requirements for dealing with records retention, information requests, content filtering, review of
inappropriate system use, etc. Often times these requirements are dictated by agencies or
organizations outside of the State of Missouri, and consideration must be given to agencies
specific regulatory requirements.
The current email architecture is optimized to work with the existing network infrastructure. A full
network analysis to determine the required network upgrades would be necessary to ensure an
acceptable level of performance under a consolidated E-mail system. This analysis would be of
such a detailed and complex nature that a stand-alone project would be warranted.
A number of agencies have made significant investments in the development of Lotus Notes
applications. Considerable programming effort would be required to rewrite, or adapt, these
applications in order to maintain the same level of workflow productivity. If a centralized E-mail solution
were implemented using Lotus Notes, rewriting applications would not be required and there would be
a mid or long-term opportunity to possibly centralize the Lotus Notes application servers.
A significant technical architectural detail associated with an E-mail system consolidation is the
implementation of a Storage Area Network (SAN). While the concept of a SAN implementation
was discussed in the vendor responses, no pricing information was provided. The Committee
has developed a conservative cost estimate to use for the business case/impact analysis.
Additionally, installation of a SAN is a significant technical undertaking and a solution scaled to
meet the demands of a consolidated E-mail system for the state will likely carry a substantial
price tag. The design and configuration of such a SAN could be a project in and of itself.
End user training should be considered as a significant element in a successful transition for any
major business application. This is especially true of a core application such as E-mail. While
the base functionality of any E-mail system is essentially the same, there are enough nuances
with each user interface that consideration must be given at least to the short-term impact on
business operations and user productivity. The Committee has developed a conservative
training cost estimate and amortization methodology to use for the business case/impact
analysis.
The impact of a platform migration must be considered in reference to archive accessibility of user
mailboxes and message stores. It will be unacceptable to users, particularly "power users", to
provide them with a hard and fast "cutoff", or to state that they will no longer be able to access
messages sent or received prior to a migration date.
The migration from one E-mail system to another involves more than simply changing client and
server software. In particular, archival message stores must be carried forward to ensure
compliance with record retention policies and business continuity.
Due to the tight integration of directory services on some platforms, consideration must be given to
the impact on the workstation and the fact that not all systems will meet the minimum
requirements for operating system performance. The Committee has not been able to develop
an estimate of the financial impact associated with desktop hardware or software upgrades, but
needs to caution that E-mail consolidation has a "trickle-down effect" to other technology areas
which could carry a significant impact to the agencies.
December 19, 2003 Page 5 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee has developed the following recommendations based upon our analysis of information
received from the state agency E-mail survey, the vendor community, and technical/business expertise
provided by the Committee membership and previous subcommittee membership.
Any Agency not currently using Lotus Notes, Microsoft Exchange, or Novell GroupWise should be
encouraged to migrate to one of these platforms the next time they upgrade their E-mail or
calendaring/scheduling system. Any upgrades should be handled in accordance with guidelines
established and overseen by the Office of Information Technology and the Missouri Adaptive
Enterprise Architecture program. (NOTE: Border gateways are exempt from this
recommendation.)
The state should maintain the E-mail and calendaring/scheduling systems currently in operation
and continue to study and refine the performance measures associated with the agencies E-
mail and calendaring/scheduling usage. Due to the complex nature of the state's network
infrastructure and the impact to overall network performance under a migration to a centralized
architectural model, further detailed analysis of E-mail patterns, volumes, and the impact on
state business operations should be conducted to determine the expected results from
significant architectural changes to the state's E-mail systems. In order to ensure that small
agencies with limited financial resources, or limited in-house technical expertise, have access to
E-mail and calendaring/scheduling functionality, the Office of Administration should provide E-
mail accounts and calendaring/scheduling functionality on a platform compliant with the
respective Compliance Components approved through the Missouri Adaptive Enterprise
Architecture program. These services should be provided on a cost recovery basis.
In order to ensure that all state agencies have access to an all encompassing global address list in
the short-term, the Office of Administration should provide a global directory and LDAP servers.
Additionally, the Office of Administration should work with the Information Technology Advisory
Board and the Governor's Cabinet to ensure that all agencies participate in providing address
information to the global directory.
Efforts should be continued through the Missouri Adaptive Enterprise Architecture effort to ensure
consistent adoption and implementation of the forthcoming ICAL standards to provide
interagency functionality for common calendaring/scheduling functions.
PLATFORM OVERVIEW
Product Evaluation
The following product evaluation has been developed to provide a dashboard-type comparison of the
three primary Email platforms currently in production. Each platform is provided a rating of "0"
(average), "-" (below average), or "+" (above average) for each of the categories listed.
Category Notes GroupWise Exchange
Compliance Components + + +
Availability 0 0 0
Security + + -
December 19, 2003 Page 6 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Reliability 0 0 0
Redundancy + + +
Flexibility + + 0
Supports other business functionality + + 0
Category Explanation
Compliance Component: Does the product meet the requirements set out in the architectural
compliance components of the Missouri Adaptive Enterprise
Architecture?
Availability: Is the product reliable enough for deployment as a critical State
communications function?
Security: Does the product offer adequate security? Is the product adequately
secure from internal and external threats? Can the product be
"hardened"?
Redundancy: Does the product offer support for server clustering and/or server
failover?
Flexibility: Does the product offer support for multiple client and server operating
systems and a variety of client software?
Supports other business functionality: Does the basic (out of the box) product include additional
features for work flow enhancement, collaboration, or other
peripheral functionality.
December 19, 2003 Page 7 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Licensing Overview
IBM/Lotus Notes
Lotus Notes is an integrated collaborative environment that combines messaging, calendaring, and
scheduling capabilities with a robust platform for collaborative application development. Lotus Notes is
especially good for automating workflow processes, document management (including document
repository services), and as a web platform. Additionally, Lotus Notes offers greater security
architecture against E-mail borne worms and viruses than competitive products by using Execution
Control Lists to determine what actions are allowed by an E-mail message or document.
Licensing Overview
In order to legally operate a Lotus Notes/Domino E-mail solution there are product licenses
which must be purchased, a Domino Server license (either Enterprise or Messaging) and a
client license (one of Complete Enterprise Option, Messaging, or iNotes Web Access). Whether
a server operating system license is required depends upon which operating system is used for
the Domino server.
Server Operating System
For the purposes of this project, it was assumed that an open source Linux operating system
would be employed, as Linux would provide a robust platform and can be obtained in open
source configurations with no licensing fees.
If instead Microsoft Windows Server were used as the operating system, one Operating System
(OS) license would be required for each server running an E-mail application and there are two
different levels of OS to chose from, Standard and Enterprise. For a Domino server, the
Standard level of OS could be employed, as Domino provides its own support for server
clustering and would not require the Enterprise feature of Windows Server.
Domino License
A license for Lotus Domino would be required for each server running Notes e-mail/calendaring
services. Lotus Domino is available in two levels, Enterprise and Messaging. For the purposes
of this project, it was assumed that Lotus Domino Messaging would be employed for new
licenses, as the additional collaboration features of Enterprise were not a project requirement
and carry an added cost. There is no version or competitive upgrade path available for either
server license, thus an outright product purchase would be required.
Client Licenses
There are three different client license options, one of which is required for each user: Complete
Enterprise Option (CEO) (which includes collaboration functions beyond e-mail/calendaring),
Messaging, and iNotes Web Access. These licenses are available on a per user basis. For the
purpose of this project it was assumed that Messaging client licenses would be used, since the
additional collaboration features were not a specified requirement, and the iNotes client has
limited functionality relative to the Messaging client. There is a version/competitive upgrade
path available for each client license type, and for the purpose of this project it was assumed
that this opportunity would be taken to decrease licensing costs.
December 19, 2003 Page 8 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Microsoft Exchange
Microsoft Exchange is a collaborative application which delivers capabilities such as E-mail, group
scheduling, discussion groups, team folders, and it provides access to information across geographic,
organizational, and technology barriers.
Licensing Overview
In order to legally operate a Microsoft Exchange E-mail solution there are several product
licenses which must be purchased. A server Operating System (OS) license (for each server),
an Exchange E-mail Application license (for each server running the application), and a server
Client Access License (CAL) (for each user), and Exchange Client Access License (for each
user).
Server Operating System
Beginning with the Operating System (OS), one license would be required for each
server running an E-mail application and there are three different levels of OS to chose
from, Standard, Enterprise, and DataCenter. For the purposes of this project, it was
assumed that the Enterprise level of OS would be employed, as this level is required for
server clustering. Pricing for each level is provided in the cost detail, however only the
Enterprise level is used for cost determination. There is no longer a version or
competitive upgrade path available for either level of the server OS product, thus an
outright product purchase would be required.
Email Application
A license for Microsoft Exchange would be required for each server running the E-mail
application. Microsoft Exchange is also available in two levels, standard and enterprise.
For the purposes of this project, it was assumed that Microsoft Exchange Enterprise
level would be employed, as there are mailbox number and size restrictions to the
Standard level that make it an inappropriate solution for this project. There is no longer
a version or competitive upgrade path available for either level of the Exchange E-mail
Application product, thus an outright product purchase would be required.
Client Access Licenses
There are two different client access licenses required to operate the current versions of
Microsoft Exchange, a Server Client Access License and an Exchange Client Access
License. These licenses are available on a per user or per device basis. For the
purpose of this project it was assumed that the client access licenses would be licensed
on a per user basis. There is no longer a version or competitive upgrade path available
for either client access license, thus an outright product purchase would be required.
Novell GroupWise
Novell GroupWise is a collaboration solution for business communications that offers traditional and
mobile users support for communication over intranets, extranets, and the Internet to such services as
E-mail, calendaring, scheduling, instant messaging, secure instant messaging, and document
collaboration.
Licensing Overview
In order to legally operate a Novell GroupWise E-mail solution, only GroupWise mailbox
licenses must be purchased. Novell provides, at the customer's discretion, the ability for
GroupWise to run on Microsoft NT/2000, Novell Netware, or a combination of both operating
systems.
December 19, 2003 Page 9 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Server Operating System
GroupWise can run on multiple operating systems including Netware and Microsoft. For the
Netware environment, a minimum of a NetWare server license and five user licenses are
required for NDS/Administration. If NDS/Administration is run on an Microsoft Operating
System, then the Netware server and five user licenses is not required.
E-mail Application
GroupWise mailbox licenses are all that are required for clients to access the system. There is
not a fee associated with the GroupWise server application.
Client Access Licenses
There are two variations of client access licenses for GroupWise, a full client and limited license.
The limited license provides the user with the WebAccess interface, utilizing a web browser to
connect to the online mailbox. The full client is the 32-bit interface which resides on the user
desktop and provides additional features.
ARCHITECTURE MODEL: Decentralized distributed heterogeneous systems
This E-mail architecture model is defined by its decentralized approach to delivering E-mail functionality
to the end user. Each state agency implements the E-mail platform that they have determined best fits
the functional needs and financial capacity of their agency. Installation, configuration, administration,
and operation are all performed at the agency level. Interaction between the various E-mail systems is
accomplished through standard protocols and gateways.
Based on the survey conducted by the Committee, the state has 308 servers distributed throughout 30
agencies. The majority of these systems are running some version of Lotus Notes (56%), Microsoft
Exchange (21%), or Novell GroupWise (20%). The remaining 3% consists primarily of servers used as
gateways between the secure portions and public portions of the network. Based on the survey results,
the current system handles 94.8 million messages per year, delivering 4.4 terabytes (4.4 million million
characters) of data per year related to E-mail communications.
Potential Benefits/Savings
There are a number of benefits to retaining our current E-mail architecture and systems. The primary
benefits are its stable functionality and its inherent susceptibility to widespread outages, ability to meet
specific agency functional requirements, and the fact that it is scaled to perform on our existing network
infrastructure. Deploying servers and placing them near end users reduces the number of intermediate
points of failure and reduces the number of users affected by an outage. A distributed system is less
susceptible to many attacks intended to disrupt service. Additionally, state employees already have a
working knowledge of their respective current client product, and discarding such experience will impact
their current level of productivity, at least in the short-term. Finally, since much of the message traffic
generated is intradepartmental, a distributed solution also maintains current bandwidth requirements, which
additional bandwidth is usually expensive and represents an ongoing cost.
A group of heterogeneous systems are less likely to share common security risks. Meaning that a
system vulnerability in one system does not automatically place the remaining systems at risk.
Contrast this with a homogeneous group of systems -- any flaw will be common to all [Geer.2003].
The distributed nature of our current arrangement is also beneficial in that servers are often located
near the end users. This distributed architecture improves availability by reducing the number of
December 19, 2003 Page 10 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
intermediate points of failure. By deploying many servers, the number of users affected by a single
outage is reduced. This distributed server architecture has allowed agencies to effectively manage
their bandwidth requirements to remote locations. Distributing the servers reduces the need for large
bandwidth requirements to pass data to a centralized location. Additionally, since much of the
message traffic is intradepartmental, a distributed solution reduces our bandwidth requirements.
Increased bandwidth is an additional ongoing cost which would, or may, offset the potential cost
savings of an overall E-mail system consolidation.
The distributed environment also provides agencies the ability to set and administer their own retention
policies, security settings, and other configuration information. Agencies impacted by HIPAA, and/or
other regulations, need to maintain configuration control of their environments in order to ensure
regulatory compliance in a timely manner.
Potential Issues/Costs
The current E-mail architecture does not have a global directory. This could be rectified by deploying a
statewide LDAP solution that all agencies would use to provide statewide employee E-mail address
accessibility. This solution is technically feasible and the cost of implementing this strategy would be
minimal. Much of the data needed to populate the directory is already collected and a number of
agencies already have LDAP servers in place. The greatest challenge may be obtaining full agency
cooperation and compliance with the provision of address information.
At the present time there is no convenient way to send a message to all state employees, however
most agencies have an "all-staff" E-mail distribution list. The minimal cost solution is to create a mailing
list on an Office of Administration managed server and subscribe each agencies "all-staff" list.
Additionally, the top level list should be moderated to restrict usage and reduce the potential for
unauthorized spamming.
Administrative tasks such as software patches and upgrades, storage backups, system tuning, and
monitoring are required by each agency for each separate E-mail system. With the decentralized
model each administrator will, for example, be researching the software patch or upgrade, determining
its applicability, finding the proper time, scheduling the install, and actually performing the install.
The heterogeneous model does not easily provide for interagency calendaring across platforms. While
the Committee is not aware of any calendar collaboration between agencies, the technical capabilities
exist for agencies that are currently using the same E-mail platform to share calendars. Some
configuration is required to direct the servers to share the necessary information, and in some cases,
firewall rules must be modified to permit connections between the servers on the proper port(s). For
cross platform communications, connectors or gateways are available, however, these gateways have
limited capabilities and generally require specific versions of the various products.
Migration/Implementation Strategies
Short-term: The Committee, or another appropriate group, needs to develop a plan for implementation
of an LDAP directory for providing global address capabilities, and interagency calendaring/scheduling
on like platforms.
Mid-term: The Committee, or another appropriate group, needs to develop a plan for interagency
calendaring/scheduling across different platforms.
ARCHITECTURE MODEL: Centralized consolidated system
December 19, 2003 Page 11 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
This E-mail architecture model is defined as a centrally administered, geographically consolidated E-
mail system built around either Lotus Notes, Microsoft Exchange, or Novell GroupWise.
Potential Benefits/Savings
This model would provide an E-mail system with a common look and feel for all state personnel. As
employees move between agencies the need to learn a new system is eliminated. With every state
employee on the same E-mail system there would be few compatibility issues and the major technical
barrier to interagency calendaring would be removed.
Administrative tasks such as software patches and upgrades, storage backups, system tuning, and
monitoring would only need to be researched once prior to implementation throughout the central
system. However, depending upon staffing levels, user support could be better or worse than currently
provided within each agency.
Each of the three platforms support a system wide address book. If there is a consolidated E-mail
system then a global directory is available to all agencies, and creating an "all-staff" mailing address is
easily accomplished. Care must be taken to prevent unauthorized sending to "all staff" distribution lists.
Potential Issues/Costs
At first glance it appears the state could save FTE and hardware costs by moving to a consolidated E-
mail system, however, analysis conducted by the Committee and information provided by the University
of Missouri regarding their system administration resource loading indicates that this may not be the
case.
Based on the results of the survey, 21.5 FTE are involved in administration of the current E-mail
systems. Responses to a follow-up survey question allow us to break this number down further to 9.3
FTE for system administration and maintenance, versus 12.2 FTE for user administration. Under a
consolidated E-mail system, the majority of administrative duties, those involving user administration,
would not be eliminated or even reduced. The other administrative duties, those involving system
administration (i.e. Operating System, Email server application, etc.) will remain, and while savings may
be available due to the consistency of the platform, additional administrative duties associated with
increased network traffic and Storage Area Network administration may offset at least some savings.
Again, depending upon staffing levels, support could be better or worse than is currently provided within
each agency. Of particular concern is the fact that problems would be prioritized based on overall state
priorities rather than individual agency needs, thus affecting some agencies ability to react or respond
to various situations.
According to agency survey responses, only twenty two percent (22%) of the servers in production
today are exclusively dedicated to providing E-mail functionality. The majority are multi-function
servers which provide other application and/or file and print services to agency personnel. These
servers would remain in production even if their E-mail functionality was removed. Additionally, if a
system other than Lotus Notes were selected as the platform of choice for consolidation, the Lotus
Notes agencies will to continue to maintain their Lotus Notes application servers. Again, since 78% of
the servers identified by the agency survey responses perform functions other than E-mail, any
reduction of administrative effort would be believed to be minimal.
The University of Missouri System (UM) is using an E-mail system of comparable size and
configuration to that being considered in this architecture model. It should be noted that UM's E-mail
system is in fact distributed with separate servers maintained on each campus. They currently have
eight (8) FTE assigned to system administration and maintenance of their E-mail servers, five (5) of
December 19, 2003 Page 12 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
those FTE are stationed in Columbia, with one (1) each in KC, St. Louis, and Rolla. In addition, the
University operates at least one help desk on each campus (there are four in Columbia) and has
distributed the responsibility of user administration (account management) to approximately one
hundred people throughout the UM System.
All systems suffer from varying degrees of failure. When a consolidated system fails the consequence
can be significant, everyone is out of business. For example, when UM's system failed in March 2002 it
was down for a week and required on-site support from Microsoft technicians to remedy the problem.
(http://iatservices.missouri.edu/techknowledge/04-2002/e-mail.html) Additionally, any security
vulnerability in such an environment can have catastrophic results, although this risk can be mitigated
with proper procedures, controls, and properly trained personnel. In the context of homeland security,
a single location or system that could be targeted to disrupt electronic government communications at a
state level increases risk.
In some circumstance, consolidating the E-mail system will move the server(s) farther away from the
end users. This increased path length will introduce more potential points of failure. Moving servers
out of the agencies not housed in the capitol complex will mean that all message traffic must cross
MAN or WAN links. Particularly in a remote location, a message sent to someone in a near by office
will have to traverse the MAN/WAN, once on being sent, and once each time it is accessed from the
mail store. Additionally, a review of the state's network infrastructure reveals that most connections
don't have a redundant backup. Therefore, if a circuit goes down there is no path to allow traffic to
route around the problem. Put another way, most of our circuits constitute a single point of failure. This
implies any circuit failure will also result in a loss of E-mail functionality for all users on the wrong side
of the downed link.
In the centralized E-mail model, changes to server software would impact other technology areas
throughout state government, perhaps more significantly than on an agency by agency basis. When
the E-mail server software is upgraded, a new version of the E-mail client is usually required to have full
functionality. Upgraded versions of E-mail clients frequently increase the minimum hardware
requirements and eliminate support for older operating systems. As a result, E-mail upgrade decisions
in the centralized model would become a driver for other software and hardware upgrades throughout
Missouri state government. Not only is it unclear how costs for implementing and operating a central
solution are going to be allocated/recovered, the related collateral issues will also have to be
considered. The project plan for a centralized model needs to address these issues in much greater
detail, as environmental variables are going to matter to agency technology budgets. Additionally a
migration to Microsoft Exchange will almost certainly result in a statewide implementation of Microsoft
Active Directory (AD). AD is required due to the integration of AD into recent versions of Microsoft
Exchange. Such an implementation has other implications that should be part of a detailed migration
project plan and should also be considered for their collateral effect to other technology requirements
within the agencies.
Migration Strategies
Short-term: An appropriate group needs to develop a plan for implementation of an LDAP directory for
providing global address capabilities, and interagency calendaring/scheduling on like platforms.
Mid-term: An appropriate group, needs to develop a plan for interagency calendaring/scheduling across
different platforms.
December 19, 2003 Page 13 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Long-term: An appropriate group, needs to conduct a detailed network assessment and risk analysis,
as well as develop a migration plan for providing common platform services while ensuring coverage of
all agency system interoperability/integration requirements and business process continuance.
BUSINESS CASE/IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Committee was charged with analyzing and developing a business case/impact analysis for a
consolidation of the state's E-mail systems to a single platform. The Committee analyzed information
from the agency survey, information provided from the vendor community, and information from
independent resources and other organizations to develop the information contained in the following
section.
Business Case/Impact Analysis Methodology
Each platform offers a unique set of additional functionality beyond basic E-mail and
calendaring/scheduling which generally form the basis for each agencies selection of a particular
product. Likewise, each vendor offers a variety of licensing schemes which significantly complicates
the cost models needed to develop a fair and consistent business case/impact analysis. In order to
provide a common basis for comparing the financial impact associated with a consolidation to each
platform the Committee developed a number of assumptions and applied them consistently to the
licensing/pricing model for each platform. The details of the assumptions are provided throughout this
section.
The Committee has developed two different approaches to the overall cost determination of an E-mail
system consolidation, 1) the License Purchase Approach, and 2) the License Credit Approach, each
are explained below.
License Purchase Approach
The License Purchase Approach assumes that the state will incur license costs for each
mailbox, or user, during Year 1 of the consolidation cost projection. Each vendor's licensing
model is reviewed in the Platform Overview section above. The cost determination under the
License Purchase Approach uses the appropriate licensing options for each vendor. The
financial details generated from the License Purchase Approach are provided below.
License Credit Approach
The License Credit Approach assumes that the state will not incur full license costs for each
mailbox which is migrated to a competitive platform. This assumption is based on information
provided in Novell's response to the vendor packet in which the vendor suggests the
opportunity for available special pricing for a competitive trade-in of existing competitive
licenses. The Committee assumes that under the appropriate competitive bid scenario that
such an offer would be similarly available from all vendors, and thus developed the License
Credit Approach for comparative analysis. The financial details generated from the License
Credit Approach are provided belowKey Assumptions and General Analytical Methodology
Based on information available in existing state contracts, information provided by the vendor
community, and the analysis and expertise provided by the Committee membership, the following Key
Assumptions were established for use in the financial analysis presented below.
General Assumptions
December 19, 2003 Page 14 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Cost projections are not adjusted for inflation.
Software license costs are not adjusted for typical lifecycle fluctuations realized over the long-
term.
All agencies carry maintenance on their software license assets.
Hardware costs are not adjusted for long-term acquisition cost decreases.
Server costs are amortized over three (3) years, assuming a three-year lifecycle.
Costs do not include consultancy services for evaluation, design, creation, and implementation
of integrated directory structures, network enhancements, or SAN configuration.
Platform Cost Category Assumptions
Server Hardware Costs
These figures represents the cost determination of the dedicated servers required to
implement the architecture model under analysis. Costs associated with multi-use
servers (servers functioning within an agency as more than an E-mail server) were
excluded from the calculation with the understanding that these servers would be
required in each agency's production environment even after an E-mail system
consolidation. For the purposes of this report, the committee used the cost of seven
thousand three hundred and sixty-two dollars ($7,362) to represent the acquisition
cost of a single server. The number was derived from the only cost detail provided
in the vendor packet response, from Novell, and was applied to all platforms so as to
provide comparability. All server costs were amortized on the basis of a three-year
lifecycle.
Server Software Costs
These figures represents the cost determination of all associated software licenses and/or
related maintenance costs for each platform. Both operating system and application
software costs are included in this cost category.
Existing User License Costs
These figures represents the cost determination of all associated software licenses for
agencies already using each respective platform. For Current Year costs, the Existing
User License Costs assumes that all agencies possess sufficient user licenses for all
mailboxes reported in the agency E-mail survey. Additionally, it is assumed that each
agency has an ongoing software maintenance contract for the user licenses reported. The
Committee knows that this is not the case, however, long term cost allocations for
maintenance costs versus new license costs will typically offset one another.
New User License Costs
These figures represents the cost determination of all associated software licenses for
agencies migrating to an E-mail platform other than their current platform. This cost
category is most significant in Year 1 and is determined by multiplying the number of users
migrating to the respective platform under analysis. For example, if there are 5 users on
platform A, and 5 users on platform B who will be migrated to platform C, then the cost
determination for New User License Costs for platform C would consist of 10 users
multiplied by the per user license cost for platform C.
December 19, 2003 Page 15 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
New User License Costs are not reflected in Year 2 and Year 3 for a migration to Microsoft
Exchange or Novell Netware, as Year 2 and Year 3 represent a maintenance mode at which
time the migrated users become part of the Existing User License Costs.
New User License Costs are reflected in Year 2 and Year 3 for a migration to Lotus Notes
since there is a different level of user license available which provides only Email
functionality and does not provide the full application development accessibility option. It is
assumed that the exiting users on Lotus Notes would maintain their full client license and
migrated users would only require the E-mail only client.
Storage Area Network Costs
This figure represents the conservative cost determination by the Committee for
implementation of a Storage Area Network (SAN). The Committee worked to determine
cost based on an implementation scaled to meet the demands identified in our analysis of E-
mail transaction and storage volume, as well as recommendations from the vendor
community. The Committee lacked the information to provide a complete and detailed
determination of all SAN implementation, redundancy, manageability, and scalability
options, however, the Committee is confident that the estimate provided is fair and
representative of a solution suitable for the analysis and intent of this project. As provided in
the Findings section of this report, the Committee would consider the detailed determination
of a SAN configuration as a separate project in and of itself.
End User Training Costs
This represents the cost determination of associated costs to provide training to all end
users as they transition to the new E-mail system. The costs for training have been
amortized over a three-year period to provide a consistent basis for comparison from
Current Year costs through Year 3 cost projections. The End User Training Costs was
based on MOTEC pricing for a customized end user training session.
Email User License/Mailbox Count
The following mailbox count information was provided by state agencies in their responses to
the E-mail survey, These counts are used in the analysis of the E-mail system consolidation
cost determination models.
Mailbox Count Information
New User
Current Mailbox Count Count
Lotus Notes 14451 32717
Microsoft 20910 26258
Novell 5336 41832
Other 6471
TOTAL 47168
Platform Software License Cost Information
The following is current pricing from existing state contracts for each platform. This pricing was
used in the analysis of the E-mail system consolidation cost determination models.
December 19, 2003 Page 16 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Product License Only Upgrade Annual Maintenance
License
Microsoft
Exchange Server Standard 485.91 n/a 121.48
Exchange Server Enterprise 2,781.82 n/a 685.52
Exchange CAL 46.39 n/a 11.63
Windows Server Standard 499.74 n/a 124.97
Windows Server Enterprise 1,623.66 n/a 405.91
Windows Server CAL 20.03 n/a 5.04
Novell
GroupWise License 75.40 n/a 19.14
Node of Cluster Services 2,897.00 n/a 725.00
Lotus Notes
Notes Client - Lotus Comm CEO 134.00 101.00 34.64
Email/Cal. Only Client 61.97 30.99 16.07
iNotes Domino Web Access 43.33 21.67 11.23
Server Domino Messaging (per processor) 790.00 n/a 205.00
Determination of "Current Year" expenditures
To develop a consistent pricing comparison for each platform, the Committee first worked to
determine a calculation of approximate dollars spent by responding state agencies for current E-
mail and calendaring/scheduling solutions. This calculation is based on four cost categories; 1)
Server Hardware Costs, 2) Server Software Costs, 3) Existing User License Costs, and 4)
End User Training Costs, all categories assumptions are explained above.
Determination of "Year 1" expenditures
To develop a consistent pricing comparison for each platform, the Committee worked to
determine the approximate costs associated with moving from the current E-mail production
environment to each of three platforms. This calculation is based on six cost categories; 1)
Server Hardware Costs, 2) Server Software Costs, 3) Existing User License Costs, 4) New
User License Costs, 5) Storage Area Network Costs, and 6) End User Training Costs, all
categories assumptions are explained above. This calculation highlights the financial "hurdle"
that is common with upgrades and product migrations, as an agency moves from a pure
maintenance mode into a new license acquisition mode.
December 19, 2003 Page 17 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Determination of "Year 2" expenditures
To develop a consistent pricing comparison for each platform during Year 2 of an Email
consolidation, the Committee worked to determine the approximate costs associated
with maintaining a single platform. This calculation is based primarily based on five cost
categories; 1) Server Hardware Costs, 2) Server Software Costs, 3) Existing User License
Costs, 4) Storage Area Network Costs, and 5) End User Training Costs, all categories
assumptions are explained above. For the Year 2 cost determination, New User License
Costs is only considered for the Lotus Notes platform since the pricing and license model
for users on the Lotus Notes E-mail only system is different than that of the existing
users who are assumed to maintain their full Lotus Notes licenses. Determination of
"Year 3" expenditures
To develop a consistent pricing comparison for each platform during Year 3 of an E-mail system
consolidation, the Committee determined the approximate costs associated with maintaining a
single platform and used the same methodology and cost categories described in Year 2 above.
License Purchase Approach
Projected Email Consolidation Costs
License Purchase Approach
4,500,000.00
4,000,000.00
3,500,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Estimated Current Costs Lotus Notes Microsoft Exchange Novell Groupwise
December 19, 2003 Page 18 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Platform Current Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Lotus Notes
Server Hardware Costs 12,270.00 63,804.00 63,804.00 63,804.00
Server Software Costs n/a 20,540.00 5,330.00 5,330.00
Existing User License Costs 500,582.64 500,582.64 500,582.64 500,582.64
New User License Costs n/a 1,013,899.83 525,762.19 525,762.19
Storage Area Network Costs n/a 166,666.67 166,666.67 166,666.67
End User Training Costs 192,680.00 628,906.67 628,906.67 628,906.67
TOTAL 705,532.64 2,394,399.80 1,891,052.16 1,891,052.16
Cost/Mailbox/Month 4.07 4.23 3.34 3.34
Annual Savings (Cost) (215,518.64)
Break Even (No Break Even) in Years n/a
Microsoft Exchange
Server Hardware Costs 88,344.00 63,804.00 63,804.00 63,804.00
Server Software Costs 39,291.48 114,542.48 28,377.18 28,377.18
Existing User License Costs 348,569.70 348,569.70 786,290.56 786,290.56
New User License Costs n/a 1,744,056.36 n/a n/a
Storage Area Network Costs n/a 166,666.67 166,666.67 166,666.67
End User Training Costs 278,800.00 628,906.67 628,906.67 628,906.67
TOTAL 755,005.18 3,066,545.87 1,674,045.07 1,674,045.07
Cost/Mailbox/Month 3.01 5.42 2.96 2.96
Annual Savings (Cost) 1,488.45
Break Even (No Break Even) in Years 934.54
Novell Groupwise
Server Hardware Costs 41,718.00 63,804.00 63,804.00 63,804.00
Server Software Costs n/a 75,322.00 18,850.00 18,850.00
Existing User License Costs 102,131.04 102,131.04 902,795.52 902,795.52
New User License Costs n/a 3,154,132.80 n/a n/a
Storage Area Network Costs n/a 166,666.67 166,666.67 166,666.67
End User Training Costs 71,146.67 628,906.67 628,906.67 628,906.67
TOTAL 214,995.71 4,190,963.17 1,781,022.85 1,781,022.85
Cost/Mailbox/Month 3.36 7.40 3.15 3.15
Annual Savings (Cost) (105,489.33)
Break Even (No Break Even) in Years n/a
Estimated Current Costs 1,675,533.53 1,675,533.53 1,675,533.53 1,675,533.53
December 19, 2003 Page 19 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
The following chart represents a modification of the previous License Purchase Chart to reflect the
pricing models and methodologies as analyzed and represented in the responses to the vendor packet.
The significant change is the representation of an allowed “credit” for existing competitive licenses by
Novell, thus introducing and suggesting the need and development of the following financial approach
in the next section, the License Credit Approach.
Projected Email Consolidation Costs
Partial Reflection of License Credit Approach
3,500,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
1,000,000.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Estimated Current Costs Lotus Notes Microsoft Exchange Novell Groupwise
December 19, 2003 Page 20 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
License Credit Approach
Projected Email Consolidation Costs
License Credit Approach
2,000,000.00
1,900,000.00
1,800,000.00
1,700,000.00
1,600,000.00
1,500,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,300,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,100,000.00
1,000,000.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Estimated Current Costs Lotus Notes Microsoft Exchange Novell Groupwise
December 19, 2003 Page 21 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
Platform Current Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Lotus Notes
Server Hardware Costs 12,270.00 63,804.00 63,804.00 63,804.00
Server Software Costs n/a 20,540.00 5,330.00 5,330.00
Existing User License Costs 500,582.64 500,582.64 500,582.64 500,582.64
New User License Costs n/a - 525,762.19 525,762.19
Storage Area Network Costs n/a 166,666.67 166,666.67 166,666.67
End User Training Costs 192,680.00 628,906.67 628,906.67 628,906.67
TOTAL 705,532.64 1,380,499.97 1,891,052.16 1,891,052.16
Cost/Mailbox/Month 4.07 2.44 3.34 3.34
Annual Savings (Cost) (215,518.64)
Break Even (No Break Even) in Years n/a
Microsoft Exchange
Server Hardware Costs 88,344.00 63,804.00 63,804.00 63,804.00
Server Software Costs 39,291.48 114,542.48 28,377.18 28,377.18
Existing User License Costs 348,569.70 348,569.70 786,290.56 786,290.56
New User License Costs n/a - n/a n/a
Storage Area Network Costs n/a 166,666.67 166,666.67 166,666.67
End User Training Costs 278,800.00 628,906.67 628,906.67 628,906.67
TOTAL 755,005.18 1,322,489.51 1,674,045.07 1,674,045.07
Cost/Mailbox/Month 3.01 2.34 2.96 2.96
Annual Savings (Cost) 1,488.45
Break Even (No Break Even) in Years n/a
Novell Groupwise
Server Hardware Costs 41,718.00 63,804.00 63,804.00 63,804.00
Server Software Costs n/a 75,322.00 18,850.00 18,850.00
Existing User License Costs 102,131.04 102,131.04 902,795.52 902,795.52
New User License Costs n/a - n/a n/a
Storage Area Network Costs n/a 166,666.67 166,666.67 166,666.67
End User Training Costs 71,146.67 628,906.67 628,906.67 628,906.67
TOTAL 214,995.71 1,036,830.37 1,781,022.85 1,781,022.85
Cost/Mailbox/Month 3.36 1.83 3.15 3.15
Annual Savings (Cost) (105,489.33)
Break Even (No Break Even) in Years n/a
Estimated Current Costs 1,675,533.53 1,675,533.53 1,675,533.53 1,675,533.53
December 19, 2003 Page 22 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
References, Links, Supporting Documents
[Geer.2003] Geer, et al; CyberInsecurity: The Cost of Monopoly; HYPERLINK
"http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf"http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf
§§
[iatservices.2002] University of Missouri, Information & Access Technology Services; IAT Services
Upgrades to Microsoft Exchange 2000;
http://iatservices.missouri.edu/techknowledge/04-2002/e-mail.htmlAppendix A - Architecture
Documents
Technology Area
Directory Services
Email Architecture
Compliance Components
Email Server System Design
Email Protocols
Web-based Email Access
Calendaring and Scheduling System Design
Appendix B - Agency Survey
Survey Questions
Appendix C - Vendor Packet
Vendor Packet
Lotus Notes (IBM)
Groupwise (Novell)
Exchange (Microsoft)Appendix D - Listing of Lotus Notes Applications
Missouri State Highway Patrol
Officer Activity Reporting
This database is for the reporting of vehicle stop activity throughout the patrol for mandated
annual Attorney General Racial Profiling reporting. The system provides the Missouri State
Highway Patrol with a facility for collecting strategic data regarding the activities conducted by
troopers with each traffic stop. The Patrol has been running the application on a Domino server,
utilizing PC for data entry in the field, and workstations located in the base office. All source
forms have been standardized within the application so that all data can be viewed in a
consistent format. Data can be entered while the officer is on the road and later replicated to
the server.
Violent Crime Support Unit
This database is used for tracking leads that have been completed, unassigned or assigned and
pending. This database will also provide time lines. Completed typed reports will be provided
to the appropriate case agent, commanding officer, prosecuting attorney, or administrative
officer. This database will also search leads and reports, including narratives, for commonalties
as requested. This 1996 Computer World Smithsonian Award winner allows law enforcement
agencies to more quickly solve crimes and capture criminals through rapid electronic availability
of data about violent crimes.
Missouri State Public Defender System
Electronic Expert-Witness Encumbrance System
Many Public Defender cases require the use of experts to evaluate defendants and testify in
court about the results. Although this expense is necessary to comply with the Public Defender
December 19, 2003 Page 23 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
mission, financial oversight of the expenditures is a priority for the Public Defender
administration. Previously, expense requests were handwritten and mailed or faxed to the
Public Defender administration for approval. Tracking of payments was difficult and time
consuming. To streamline the process, a new electronic expert witness expense request and
encumbrance tracking system was developed in Lotus Notes. The encumbrance requests
database is the latest addition to our mission-critical Case Management database system, a
6-database suite written and maintained in-house, exclusively in Lotus Notes. The system
includes electronic request creation, multiple levels of electronic approval, and payment
tracking. The results include a faster approval time --with paper and mailing expenses
eliminated -- and a more efficient method of payment tracking. The system also includes an
integrated automatic email warning when expenditures exceed the approved expense amount.
The electronic encumbrance system enables the Public Defender System to control costs while
offering clients the best possible defense.
Automated Timesheet Database
As part of the 2000 statewide SAM II Human Resources/Payroll implementation, the PD system
created a Lotus Notes database used by employees to enter time and leave. With the click of a
button, the database generates time and leave records for all 550 employees to a formatted
interface text file, which is uploaded into the SAM II system. The automated interface process
dramatically reduces data entry and allows Human Resources personnel to use their time more
efficiently. Additionally, the PD System has shared this application with OA DIS and the Office
of State Courts Administrators, both of which began using the application in 2001.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Enterpol - Records Management for Law Enforcement
Missouri State Parks Rangers provide law enforcement for Missouri's State Parks. An
automated system was needed to keep permanent records of incidents that occur in each park,
and be able to determine in a timely manner if the same individual had been involved in
incidents before at that or any other of the sixty eight (68) parks. Without an automated system,
copies of paper records had to be centralized, and searches of central files were not timely and
were not always available during park operating hours. Existing third-party automated solutions
were considered, including a Lotus Notes solution called Enterpol. Enterpol was already used
by law enforcement agencies in ten other states. After a successful evaluation, an Enterpol
system was implemented at DNR using existing servers and staff.
Fiscal Notes Collaboration
Agencies review and provide feedback on the impact of proposed legislation via fiscal notes.
Within DNR, there are multiple divisions with unique missions that must evaluate and respond to
these fiscal notes. To ease this collaboration among the Office of the Director and the divisions,
a customized Notes database is used to share and coordinate feedback on hundreds of fiscal
notes per year. This is a classic collaboration example, for which Notes excels. Prior to this
system, information was exchanged and organized far less effectively through e-mail alone.
Folder Tracking System
Responses to key issues are often managed through eleven types of color-coded "folders",
whether paper or virtual. Open records requests are one example category. Key issues and
responses to them often go through various groups or individuals who have related
responsibilities, information, and/or expertise. An automated method was required to track who
is working with a folder at any given time, when a folder is due and whether it has any
associated deadlines, and to keep a history of input being incorporated into the response. The
December 19, 2003 Page 24 of 25
Email S.W.A.T. Committee
Email Consolidation Technical Report and Business Case/Impact Analysis
system not only tracks the information, it notifies appropriate staff of deadlines and other
important status information by e-mail. This is a classic workflow example, for which Notes
excels. Prior to this system, location and status of key folders was tracked by hand, with
updates manually e-mailed to appropriate parties, with all record archives being on paper.
Appendix E - University of Missouri Information
MS Exchange Experience
Higher Education Technical Presentation
December 19, 2003 Page 25 of 25
Related docs
