Marketing Pitch for CUSG - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 15
About This Presentation
Title:

Marketing Pitch for CUSG

Description:

High quality, modern, cost-effective computing enterprise ... I got really frustrated with the billing back in... ..., I thought they only did Unix and ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:28
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: DavidE1
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Marketing Pitch for CUSG


1
Marketing Pitch for CUSG
NEW
IMPROVED
  • David E. Culler
  • Computer Science Division
  • U.C. Berkeley

Cheap
Go Bears
2
What we all want
  • High quality, modern, cost-effective computing
    enterprise
  • across EECS, SodaCory, Unix NT
  • that we dont have to worry about
  • with technical staff that take care of it.
  • FREE, would be nice too.

3
The Structure we have built
Infrastructure (IDSG) Unix, NT, network,
services, storage, SWW, mail, directory,
calendar defines the blueprint http//www.eecs.ber
keley.edu/idsg
4
What does CUSG do?
  • System / Software / User support
  • on contract (730 desktop, 1,350 server, 530
    sys mgmt)
  • chosen in 99 to match CSG charges in Cory
  • time materials (58/hour)
  • gt isolate, fix, upgrade
  • HW support contracts
  • mostly passed through to Compaq
  • price varies with system
  • http//www.eecs.berkeley.edu/cusg

5
Whats NEW and IMPROVED?
  • Strong team
  • Unix and NT
  • Appropriate spread of skill sets
  • Tuned in to the EECS enterprise
  • Focused on support
  • Relieved of infrastructure duties
  • Tracking tools and helpdesk are in place
  • Billing process up to date
  • Requests acknowledged automatically via email to
    GA
  • Work and progress is trackable
  • Effective
  • Got a problem http//www.eecs.berkeley.edu/cusg/R
    equests/
  • or mail cusg_at_eecs

6
CUSG Team (395 Cory, 387 Soda)
  • Rob McNicholas, PA IV, Leader (395 Cory)
  • Lars Rohrbach, PA III (395 Cory)
  • Jason Jed, PA III (387 Soda)
  • Phil Loarie, Prin. Elect. Tech. (399
    Cory)
  • Ann DiFruscia, PA II (321 Soda)
  • Geoffrey Tso, Mike Howard students
  • Gary Spears, GA

7
But, ...
  • , I used them N years ago and
  • , I got really frustrated with the billing back
    in
  • , I thought they only did Unix and
  • , I do all my own administration, so
  • , I just have my grad students do system admin
  • , I tried to sign up, but my GA thought it would
    save me money
  • , but my machine doesnt break that often...
  • , I tried six months ago and they just werent
    responsive

8
Some facts
  • Today there are 212 systems/users on contract
  • From June-Dec it cost us 2,436/yr (effective)
    to administer a desktop
  • bringing machines up to current
  • bringing users up to current
  • significant revenue shortfall
  • Currently, in steady state it costs us 1,044/yr
  • utilizing the infrastructure well (NT-SWW, etc.)
  • better tools, more experienced team
  • At current staffing, capacity 330 contracts
  • also breakeven point
  • At 400 contracts, current pricing starts to work

9
Customer testimonials
10
More facts
  • Without greater participation, CUSG will fail

11
Why you want CUSG to exist
  • Your own system admin is very expensive
  • PA III gt 100 K / year _at_ 20 desktops gt
    5K/desktop
  • hard to hire, retain, house (expect gaps)
  • Skill set pyramid provides effective service
  • Guru solves less frequent hard problems
  • More moderate training for more routine tasks
  • Range of specialties
  • Greater uniformity and cohesion across dept.
  • operate within the blueprint, rather than
    fiefdoms
  • better support epidemiology
  • Better coverage, pooling, fall back
  • If it does not, the infrastructure group is
    overtaxed, the enterprise falls apart
  • unless we fold support into the baseline!

12
So what do I do?
  • Just click on http//www.eecs.berkeley.edu/cusg/Re
    quests/
  • Put Sign me up in the Work to be Done box

13
Pros and Cons of Support Contract
  • TM is fundamentally more expensive to provide
  • more billing overhead per action (for both GAs)
  • harder to put in your budgets
  • introduces a nagging focus on every little
    issue
  • difficult to plan and staff
  • Must expect lower quality of service
  • unfair to give priority over loyal contractees
  • support cannot be proactive or even up-to-date
  • only involved in putting out fires
  • Ultimately, the goal is to get a fair deal with
    minimum hassle
  • contract can be abused. needs to be a shared
    understanding

14
Going forward
  • 7/99 plan remains in force till end of FY
  • Future depends on enrollment
  • Time to assemble FY2000 recharge plan
  • Want to know your preferred products
  • more Complete contract
  • fold basic helpdesk into the baseline
  • your good idea goes here

15
Discussion
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com