1. Active Directory Consolidation Close Out Meeting Dave Chomas Senior Consultant dchomas@microsoft.com

2. Agenda  Scope of the engagement? (Reminder)  Objectives of the engagement? (Reminder)  Operations review findings  Systems management tools assessment findings  Server infrastructure assessment findings  Potential consolidated environment architectures  Risk Analysis  Next steps  Q&A

3. Scope  In Scope  High Level Current environment Assessment  Existing Server and network infrastructure  Existing IT operations review  Existing systems management tools assessment  Evaluate consolidation opportunities and scenarios  Planning and first pass design activities  Out of Scope  Detailed design  Training

4. Scope  What this is  Impartial high-level review of UW-M’s AD implementations  What this isn’t  A ‘bash’ session of any group

5. UW-M Business Objectives Reduce the total amount of redundant administration by granting UW-M’s Core Services IT organization the ability to view and manage all global IT resources. Reduce the total amount of redundant administration by granting UW-M’s Core Services IT organization the ability to view and manage all global IT resources. Allow UW-M to standardize the process of merging and migrating business IT resources. Allow UW-M to standardize the process of merging and migrating business IT resources. Allow UW-M to consolidate the number of common directory services technologies providing similar IT services into a common or centralized platform to maximize common services and tasks providing for a more efficient operation for the university as a whole. Allow UW-M to consolidate the number of common directory services technologies providing similar IT services into a common or centralized platform to maximize common services and tasks providing for a more efficient operation for the university as a whole. Improve business continuity by providing a global, common and secure repository of trusted identification. Improve business continuity by providing a global, common and secure repository of trusted identification. Reduce costs by consolidating resources such as network services and server hardware Reduce costs by consolidating resources such as network services and server hardware Identify the risks Identify the risks Determine next steps Determine next steps

6. Project Team Customer  Executive sponsor - Paul Trebian  Project manager - Atis Purins  Technology architects - AD Core Services Team MS Account Team Steve Moran – Engagement Manager Mary Paulson – Account Manager Delivery Consultant Dave Chomas

7. Server Assessment  ~14 Active Directory implementations on campus  6 email systems in addition to PantherMail  File & Print servers in each school/department Basic Server Environments

8. Strengths of decentralized environments Improvement Opportunities Operations review findings More responsive staff More responsive staff Better customer service Better customer service IT staff has complete control over environment IT staff has complete control over environment Prioritization of projects, service calls, etc. Prioritization of projects, service calls, etc. More education needed More education needed Insecure data centers Insecure data centers Environments running on desktops Environments running on desktops Duplication of effort Duplication of effort Loss of objectivity Loss of objectivity Loss of budgetary control Loss of budgetary control Inconsistent service levels Inconsistent service levels

9. Strengths of centralized environments Improvement Opportunities Operations review findings Easy automation of common tasks Easy automation of common tasks Simpler environment to troubleshoot Simpler environment to troubleshoot Strong(er) budgetary controls Strong(er) budgetary controls Economies of scale for commodity services Economies of scale for commodity services University-wide perspective University-wide perspective Lack of communication with customers Lack of communication with customers Perceived as un-responsive, reactionary instead of proactive Perceived as un-responsive, reactionary instead of proactive Perceived as slow to implement new technologies Perceived as slow to implement new technologies

10. Best Practice environments Operations review findings Centralized in terms of organization Centralized in terms of organization  Retains objectivity when your customer isn’t your boss Decentralized in terms of location Decentralized in terms of location  Maximizes communications  Maximizes customer interaction Not every position should be centralized Not every position should be centralized  Strategy & vision needs ‘big picture’ view  Training  Budgetary control Share & Partner! Share & Partner!  No more Central IT – Campus IT

11. Best Practice environments Operations review findings Need better documentation Need better documentation  Stop reinventing the wheel – look at other educational institutions’ websites for inspiration Stanford http://windows.stanford.edu/index.shtml Stanford http://windows.stanford.edu/index.shtml http://windows.stanford.edu/index.shtml Yale http://wss.yale.edu/win2k/ Yale http://wss.yale.edu/win2k/ http://wss.yale.edu/win2k/ University of Colorado-Boulder http://www.colorado.edu/its/windows2000/ University of Colorado-Boulder http://www.colorado.edu/its/windows2000/ http://www.colorado.edu/its/windows2000/ Massachusetts Institute of Technology http://web.mit.edu/pismere/ Massachusetts Institute of Technology http://web.mit.edu/pismere/ http://web.mit.edu/pismere/

12. System Management Tools Assessment Most groups are manually monitoring their systems Most groups are manually monitoring their systems Consolidation would allow centralized monitoring, giving better uptime and SLAs Consolidation would allow centralized monitoring, giving better uptime and SLAs Software Distribution and Patch Management Service Monitoring Most groups are managing their own software management & patch management systems Most groups are managing their own software management & patch management systems Consolidation would allow centralized patch management Consolidation would allow centralized patch management

13. Options going forward Cease Consolidation Plans ProsCons Path of least resistance Duplicate Services Each group maintains control Duplicate Effort Disjointed services for the campus

14. Options going forward Consolidate using existing AD.UWM.EDU ProsCons Path of least resistance Political effort involved Maintains existing SLAs A lot of rework to make it palatable to campus All benefits of consolidation

15. Options going forward Consolidate using new AD implementation ProsCons Designed from ground up for campus Technical effort involved All benefits of consolidation A lot of rework of existing directories

16. Becomes technical architects of common Active Directory implementation Becomes technical architects of common Active Directory implementation Upon completion of common AD, morphs into the Change Control Board (CCB) Upon completion of common AD, morphs into the Change Control Board (CCB)  This can help make central IT authority more palatable  Architectural changes must be brought before CCB prior to implementation  Central IT authority responsible for day-to-day operations All core services teams (File, E-Mail, etc.) work together on cross-over issues All core services teams (File, E-Mail, etc.) work together on cross-over issues Options going forward AD Core Services Team

17. Options going forward Strategy & Vision Group formed Creates business requirements for common AD Creates business requirements for common AD Provides campus leadership for ALL IT Provides campus leadership for ALL IT Made up of non-technical leaders Made up of non-technical leaders  Leave technical product decisions to core services teams

18. Risk Analysis RiskResult AD.UWM.EDU fails from lack of use by wider communityWhile some groups will migrate to AD.UWM.EDU anyway, larger and more complex groups will maintain their own structures – ultimately dooming the centralized offering Opportunity cost of what can’t be offeredCertain enterprise applications and offerings are only economically viable if a certain scale can be achieved. What’s the cost of continuing to offer “just authentication services” via Active Directory? Inconsistent SLAs offered by the individual school IT groups Too much “it’s the other’s guy’s problem” attitude on campus. Little to no realization that it is one campus where one mismanaged group can impact the entire campus Inconsistent patching offered by the individual school IT groups Security risk if not all campus machines are consistently patched and maintained Lack of training in productsIt is only a matter of time before an administrator makes a mistake due to a lack of training. These mistakes can be managed when an environment is small, but once the entire University is onboard, it can spiral out of control

19. Next Steps  Open discussion:  Consolidation opportunities?  Potential architectures?  Technologies can be utilized?

20. Next Steps  Recommendations:  “Loose Confederation” AD  Easiest to achieve with new AD, but existing can be saved  Campus needs to partner with each other  Campus IT – not Central IT  Training across the board

21. Logical Design  An example of a “loose confederation” Active Directory

22. © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. This presentation is for informational purposes only. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN THIS SUMMARY. Q&A Thanks