Business Case

UA Video Conferencing Refresh (VCR)

Contents Proposal Overview

Problem Statement:

Proposed Future State:

Goals and Objectives:

Success Criteria:

Analysis

Strategic Alignment:

Current Infrastructure

Preferred Approach:

Cost/Benefit Analysis:

Technical Alignment:

Risks, Constraints, Assumptions:

Proposed Schedule:

Proposed Resource Estimates:

Proposal Overview

Problem Statement:

OIT Video Conferencing Services (VCS) is in need of an upgrade to university's video conferencing

platform, including infrastructure. The current infrastructure is out of date and no longer being

manufactured. End-of-support dates for the equipment start as early as June 2018. A new video

conferencing solution is in need In order to stay current with industry trends and accommodate the

increasing need for video conferencing at the University of Alaska. Below are the specific problems

the Video Conferencing Refresh is trying to solve:

1. The current VCS infrastructure provides a limited number of available ports (120) for video

conferencing from endpoints and devices, recordings, and livestreams. UA is close to the

maximum capacity of ports to provide the number of video conferences requested.

2. Service support for Standard Definition (SD) bridges expires September of 2018. Service

Support

for High definition (HD) bridges expires July 2020. OIT-VCS will be unable to secure vendor

or manufacturer support. This is a liability for UA because there will be no guarantee that

UA will be able to provide video conferencing if the infrastructure breaks.

3. VCS pays about $183k annually for H.323 conferencing (the ability to send voice and video

based on an IP address) and Sip conferencing (which is not dependent on having a

consistent IP address). VCS would like to find a lower cost solution through vendor

consolidation.

4. VCS primarily makes use of H.323, described above, however they would like to move

towards industry trends, which is the sole use of Sip conferencing. Sip conferencing is easier

to support, both technically and operationally.

5. University of Alaska (UA) users are unable to schedule video conferences independently,

unless a

Google Hangout, or an unsupported solution, is used. Google Hangouts are unable to be

recorded and Google Hangouts are incompatible with the H.323 endpoints limiting who

users are able to connect with.

6. Every conference, whether administrative or academic in nature, has to be pre-scheduled

by VCS or an approved distributed tech. During the academic year this averages nearly 40

conferences per day. This means that UA users are unable to schedule their own ad hoc

conferences, therefore monopolizing VCS resources which could be spent improving

provision of the service, such as perfecting room builds.

Proposed Future State:

A suitable system would incorporate the following attributes:

1. A flexible port model is implemented to accommodate the growing need for video conferencing.

This model will be able to increase port limits with little notice. This aligns VCS

infrastructure with current market trends.

2. The need to refresh expensive infrastructure, such as conferencing bridges, is

significantly reduced or eliminated. This could be achieved through a cloud solution

or an on-premise solution, as long as the cost model avoids the need for frequent

upgrades.

3. Consolidate licensing and cost model which will reduce the cost to the university customers

and the cost to maintain videoconference equipment. UA will have one license to pay for

annually, ideally at a lower rate, and VCS will be able to pass this savings off onto their

customers.

4. A solution which moves primarily towards SIP conferencing technology. SIP conferencing

allows Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI), rather than an Internet Protocol (IP) based

conferencing system, allowing for easier connections on any mobile device.

5. UA users throughout the system will be able to independently conduct both scheduled and

ad

hoc meetings, both administrative and academic in nature. While enhancing distance

delivery of classes and presentations.

6. With scheduling and administrative functions reduced, VCS resources will be better utilized

by

being directed towards room builds, operation support and service improvements. 7. A device and endpoint agnostic framework which supports the next generation of VCS users

with better integration of mobile devices and a variety of platforms. Increase support for mobile devices and a broader range of desktop clients.

8. Expanded integration with other conference systems through adoption of SIP protocol

Goals and Objectives:

● Goal #1- Align VCS infrastructure with current market trends ○ Objective #1.1- To research current market trends and create a feature list to

use for vendor selection ● Goal #2- Reduce cost to departments for VCS equipment installs

○ Objective #2.1- Select a new vendor for VCS Refresh Project saving money on licensing, software, hardware, staff time needed to support the system and ???

● Goal #3- Limit reliance on single vendor bridging technology ○ Objective #3.1- Upgrade VC network to support current standards

● Goal #4- Increase support for mobile devices and a broader range of desktop clients ○ Objective #4.1- Increase capacity of VCS system to connect with a range of

mobile devices and web clients

● Goal #5- Expand integration with other conference systems through adoption of SIP protocol

○ Objective #5.1- Integrate VCS services with more OS platforms

Success Criteria:

A successful project would see the procurement, design, and deployment of a comprehensive

video conferencing solution which meets the following criteria:

● Reliability is improved by at least 5%. VCS currently averages a 91% success rate on all

active conferences. A successful system would increase that number to above 98%.

● Overall annual costs are reduced by about 10%. A reduction will reduce the costs to license

and

maintain the infrastructure. This, in turn, will reduce the cost burden to the customer. A

major focus of this effort is eliminate the high cost hardware refresh by considering cloud

solutions.

● The solution is flexible to point that the university pays for capacity based on current demand

with the ability to easily and quickly increase capacity as demand fluctuates.

● Customer is empowered to schedule and modify conferences without requiring VCS support.

Moreover, customers can create ad hoc conferences on the fly.

Analysis

Strategic Alignment:

Focus:

We will reduce unnecessary redundancy to more cost effectively meet the state's higher education

needs by focusing each university on its unique strengths.

The goal is to deploy a system that is reliable, flexible and seamlessly integrates with today's mobile

technologies. If we can do this while reducing cost to the customer, there is less chance that the

customer will use less robust tools or attempt to acquire lower cost solutions on their own (Tech

Divergence). A mutually beneficial solution encourages standardization and acceptance.

Access:

We will increase Alaskans’ participation in higher education by maximizing use of innovations in e-

Learning, supporting high demand programs, and ensuring affordability.

A solution that works well with today’s latest mobile devices and technology will encourage

participation in video conference among remote and traveling customers. Low Band width for rural

customers

Excellence:

We commit to excellence in everything we do, in the classroom, in our labs, and in the communities

we serve.

By including industry best practices and aligning with current market trends, the solution will be

more reliable, flexible and offer a better customer experience.

Consistency:

We will streamline and increase consistency in business practices, policies, processes, and systems

that support expedited student progress.

Fiscal Sustainability

We seek to be more entrepreneurial in our strategies to grow and diversify our revenues

Removing the university from the expensive hardware refresh cycle with the potential to also reduce

annual operating costs will result in a more sustainable solution in the long term.

Current Infrastructure The following diagrams provide an overview of

the myriad of video conference configurations

supported by the current infrastructure:

Figure 1

Figure 1 depicts a typical scenario which may be used for both academic courses or administrative

meetings. There are 4 Cisco gatekeepers (one for each main campus and one for redundancy) that

manage the H.323 traffic. Many of our academic and administrative conferences connect multiple

endpoints through the bridges. These endpoints are installed in conference rooms and classrooms

alike. Each conference is booked on TMS by a VCS technician prior to the conference. Participants

only need to arrive to the room and unmute the mic to participate. Participants do not initiate any

calls, that is done for them by the VCS technician.

Figure 2

Figure 2 is similar to the previous example. This

diagram adds an audio conferencing line to the

standard conference. Using a PRI line connected

to a Codian ISDN Gateway, we are able to set up a

dial string to the 1-800 number of our outsourced

audio conferencing provider (Two Rivers) to the

bridged conference. We then add the gateway to

the conference as a non-video participant. VCS

enters the moderator code for the connection.

Figure 3

Figure 3 adds recording to the standard

conference. There are 2 options available to

record a conference. In the drawing above, we

connect 2 Tandberg/Cisco Content Servers to our

instance of Telepresence Management Suite

(TMS) and add the recorder to the conference as

a passive participant to the bridged conference.

This will record all of the participants in the

conference and have a separate content channel. The recordings are kept on our NAS storage.

The other way for us to record a conference is to connect a Pexip WebRTC virtual meeting room to

the bridged conference and connect an RTMP link as a participant in the Pexip room that sends it to our instance of Kaltura.

Figure 4

In figure 4, H.323 codecs in

classrooms/conference rooms connect to the

conference through the bridge and also connect

to our instance of Pexip to a virtual meeting

room. Desktop/Tablet/Smartphone users are

then able to call into the virtual meeting room to

be connected to the rest of the conference. If there is a Pexip participant from outside the UA

network, that is not a problem since Pexip has a public facing IP to connect the virtual meeting

room.

Figure 5

Figure 5 includes the capability to include

participants from outside the UA network. In

order for a video conferencing unit outside of the

UA network to connect, the external IP is dialed to

by our bridge as it has a public facing IP. If the

outside endpoint is behind a firewall, they are

able to dial our bridge IP address and placed in an

auto-attendant, then placed in the correct

conference.

Figure 6

Figure 6 combines all of the previous options into one conference.

Preferred Approach:

In order to determine current trends in the

marketplace and identify relevant features and

capabilities, the first objective should be a solicitation of information through the issue of a Request

for Information (RFI) by the Contracting and Procurement Office.

Based on results of the RFI, Video Conferencing Services will work with select end users and

other stakeholders to determine the best approach, define the scope, develop a

comprehensive list of requirements which will be used during the Request for Purchase (RFP)

process.

A Solicitation of bids, via the RFP should be initiated early enough in 2018 to allow for deployment

and go-live prior to the beginning of the Fall semester.

A preferred approach must support the following use-cases:

Scenario 1

Connect video conference capable rooms which may be located through the UA system.

Senario 2

Connect video conference capable rooms which

may be located through the UA system and

include 3rd party audio conferencing participants.

Capture/Record live stream events

Include web participants

Connect video conferencing capable room located either inside or outside UA network.

Cost/Benefit Analysis:

Current costs are

~$183k Expected

savings 10% = $18k

VCS currently pays 2 separate bills in order to provide video conferencing to the University of Alaska.

We pay a lump maintenance bill for all of our

MCU’s, port/license fees, TMS Management

Licenses and registered endpoints, control and

express, and a handful of our office’s owned

endpoints. This cost is about $114k. We spend

$68k on our WebRtc client with 60 available ports.

This does not include the initial money spent on

appliances and VM’s to run these services. By

upgrading to a cloud solution and a more self-serve solution, VCS would be able to save resources

spent on scheduling and reserving rooms and focus on more long term projects and room builds. We

would also be able to save money on appliance costs and be able to have quick access to more ports

if needed without the time/money of procuring another VM to allow the increase of resources.

Additionally, by migrating the physical infrastructure to the cloud, the budget will be more

predictable. The cost and risk of hardware failure fall on the vendor.

Technical Alignment:

As a “cloud first” organization, OIT looks to off-premises hosted solutions to help reduce long term costs by eliminating the support and cyclical refresh of expensive hardware and infrastructure. This further eases the strain on shrinking personnel staffs.

Migrating to SIP as the standard technology will reduce our reliance on locally hosted hardware and allow complex connections to be managed remotely by cloud solutions.

Enabling the end user to perform common administration tasks such as scheduling, changes to locations and attendees, as well creating ad-hoc conferences will result in more efficient use of of support personnel.

Risks, Constraints, Assumptions:

● Constraint- This project will use current staff time and resources. No additional staff will be hired for this project. This project has no individual budget.

● Assumption- VCS will continue to provide individual end user support, quality control, and remote management of sessions. Service expectations of VCS will not change.

● Assumption- Scope and service definition to UA customers will remain the same. This project is an upgrade to the infrastructure.

● Assumption- The impact of VCS services on reducing travel costs is assumed. This will not be individually measured or compared.

● Risk- The University of Alaska VCS service is unique among peer institutions and may also have uncommon requirements. Third party vendors may not be able to meet all the project requirements and the search may not find a suitable replacement for the current system.

● Risk- The VCS system has many stakeholders. Scope creep and changes may lead to a failed vendor search.

● Risk- Changes in university funding priorities may change the scope of this project or delay the testing and launch of the final product

Proposed Schedule:

RFI: TBD

Post RFI Analysis: 3-4

Months RFP: 3 Months

Design deployment: Desired Completion Jun 2018

Proposed Resource Estimates:

As this effort progresses, resources will be needed from across OIT. A rough projection of resource

allocation for this project might look like this:

Project Manager - 20% FTE

Video Conferencing Services Manager - 15%

FTE 2 Video Conferencing Technicians - 20% FTE

Telecommunications Service - 10% FTE

Security Services - 10% FTE

Technical Services - 5% FTE