View
34
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Financing IT Services Recharging & Core Funding Strategies Common Solutions Group J.W. McCredie February 3, 2000. CSG Agenda. Overview of CSG mini-survey Update on implementation of UC Berkeley network funding model Discussion Next steps for CSG. UC Berkeley Carnegie Mellon Chicago - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Financing IT ServicesFinancing IT ServicesRecharging & Core Funding StrategiesRecharging & Core Funding Strategies
Common Solutions GroupCommon Solutions Group
J.W. McCredieJ.W. McCredieFebruary 3, 2000February 3, 2000
2
CSG Agenda
• Overview of CSG mini-survey
• Update on implementation of UC Berkeley network funding model
• Discussion
• Next steps for CSG
3
CSG Mini-survey -- Universities
• UC Berkeley• Carnegie Mellon• Chicago• Columbia• Duke• Georgetown• Harvard
• Maryland• Michigan• Penn State• Stanford• Virginia• Yale
4
Important Services -- Recharged
Most cited• Telephone services• Data networking• Cable TV• Administrative apps.• Consulting• Programming• Licensed software
Also mentioned• PC support• Repair• ADSL & ISDN• Volume printing• Teleconferencing• Facilities mgt.• Video production
5
Important Services -- No charge
Most cited• Help desk• Email• General inst. support• Dial-in modems• Student clusters• Administrative apps• Crucial software• Net file storage
Also mentioned• PC support• Repair• ADSL & ISDN• Volume printing• Teleconferencing• Facilities mgt.• Video production• Training
6
Important Services -- Heavy Subsidy
• Data network• Administrative applications• Excess capacity• Software licenses• Printing• Disk space• Student labs• Site licensed software
7
Network Charging
• Yes - 11• No - 2• Full cost ~ 50%• Subsidized ~50%• Many responses indicated unhappiness
with current model and indicated university was searching for a better way.
8
Percent of operations recharged
• Low 10 - 15%
• High 80 - 97%
• Question was ambiguous because of varied roles of voice services and technology stores.
9
Suggested topics for discussion
• Network funding models -- several
• Distributed applications
• Role (and problems) of cross subsidies
• Comparisons with commercial rates
• Models that demonstrate value of services rather than make IT organiza- tions look like money grubbing vendors.
Update on UC Berkeley Network Funding Model Implementation
11
Methodology
• 1st -- Determine true costs of operatingthe network (replacement cost ~$200M -- without user computers)
• 2nd -- Develop the internal gap between cost and recovery
• 3rd -- Examine ways to close the gap• 4th -- Estimate impacts of funding
mechanisms
12
Terminology
• Utility:– Infrastructure & Services for the common
good (a.k.a. -- centrally funded)
• Market:– Recoverable services where costs may
move with the market -- visible to depts.
• Lines Of Business (LOB):– Identifiable service centers
13
Building B Building A
Face PlateStation
Device
HorizontalWire
CoreMDF
Electronics
Key Data Network Components
Terminology
BDF
Riser
Network ClosetElectronics
~ 9~240
14
Terminology
• Direct Costs– Directly Related to providing a LOB
• Charges from telcos for long distance• Maintenance on backbone system
15
Terminology
• Indirect Costs– Not directly related to providing a LOB but
required for the LOB• Training of staff who perform the LOB• Office supplies
16
Terminology
• Overhead – Ongoing administrative expense of the
enterprise• Rent• Insurance• General and Administrative
17
Policy Driven Model
• Created Four Levels of Choice– Expenditure Classification– Utility vs. Market Proportion– Allocation by LOB– LOB Grouping
18
VCAC Next Steps
• Reaffirm decision about whether to charge for data network charges
• Should charges be on a per node, or more aggregate level (subnet, depart-ment, college, control level, etc.)
• How much should be charged?
19
Implementation Task Force Results
• Charter to decide on implementation details surrounding recharging proposal developed by previous committee, adopted by Chancellor’s Cabinet, and approved by faculty commission
• After one year of deliberation, the task force did not support partial recharge of approximately $7-10 per month per node (8-4)
20
Implementation Task Force Results - continued
• Voted to support recharging if departments “made whole” at transition.
• Unanimously voted to move forward with recharging plan if departments “made whole” at transition.
21
Computing and Communications Policy Board
• Reviewed VCAC presentation
• Reviewed Implementation task force recommendations
• Reviewed action at UCSF
• Discussed policy of “making departments whole”
• Chancellor’s new idea
22
Computing and Communications Policy Board
• Chancellor’s new idea
• “Often the best ideas appears after you think you’ve run out of them.”
• Node bank
23
What to do?
Recommended