LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  May 2010

CODE4LIB May 2010

Subject:

Buy, Borrow, or Build

From:

"Frumkin, Jeremy" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 6 May 2010 11:32:15 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (86 lines)

Hi all -

One of the interesting tasks on my plate this year is to devise a document that reflects a strategy around "Buy, Borrow, or Build" as relates to technology approaches here at the University of Arizona Libraries. Below is the text of this "reference architecture", and I am particularly interested to hear comments from the community regarding this document. 

Some context: We are working hard here at the UA Libraries to concentrate our finite development resources are true gap areas - i.e. we want to not recreate the wheel, and due to the current budget environment, we truly need to be efficient in how we deploy our staff who perform development work. At the same time, we want to move forward in truly innovative areas. The approach in this document is to not get caught up on the terms "Buy", "Borrow", and "Build", but to understand the reasoning behind looking at these approaches and describing how the group in our library will think about technology decisions with the 3 B's being an important consideration.


Here's the reference architecture:

=======================================

REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE DOCUMENT
Buy, Borrow, Build (B3)
Last Revision: 5/06/2010

Summary

This document describes the University of Arizona Libraries’ Technology Architecture Council’s approach when considering technology solutions that look to Buy, Borrow, or Build a technology solution.

Context

The UAL must heavily weigh cost and sustainability in regards to its overall technology strategy.  Resources devoted to technology and technology support are limited and must be allocated effectively and efficiently; the more resource we allocate to one activity directly impacts the resource we have available for other prioritized activities. It should also be noted that certain types of resources, such as staff resources, have certain limitations that also need be taken into account. The UAL’s Technology Architecture Council (TAC) must take into account all cost factors, regardless of type of cost (such as staff time or money) in order for TAC to devise a strategy that is pragmatic for the UAL to implement.

Reference Architecture - Buy, Borrow, or Build

There are three approaches generally considered with regard to technology solutions: Whether to Buy a solution, to take a current existing solution and enhance it with additional functions and features (this is called ‘Borrow’), or to Build a solution from scratch.

A Buy approach is when an organization purchases, licenses, or otherwise acquires a ready-made solution that requires no additional development of new features or functions in order for the solution to be deployed to meet the needs of the UAL. A Buy still may require configuration and integration with other systems (such as single sign-on). (It should be noted that Open Source solutions can be considered Buys in regards to approach, if they do not require any additional features or functions beyond what they provide out-of-the-box)

A Borrow approach is when an organization purchases, licenses, or otherwise acquires a ready-made solution, but that solution requires some amount of additional development to add features or functions that are essential to meet the needs of the service/product that the solution is intended to support. 

A Build approach is when an organization decides to create (often develop) the needed technology solution. 

Regardless of approach, the UAL needs to understand the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) when considering technology solutions. For the approaches listed above, the following are major factors in examining the TCO:


Buy:

	• Initial purchase / license / set-up cost (including configuration and integration)
	• Ongoing support / licensing cost
	• Cost of regular upgrades
	• Cost of dedicated hardware (if appropriate)
	• Ongoing technical staff support costs (i.e. application or system administration)
	• Exit costs (i.e. estimate of time / cost to migrate from this solution when needed)

Borrow:

	• Initial purchase / license / set-up cost (including configuration and integration)
	• Initial development costs
	• Ongoing development costs
	• Ongoing support / licensing cost
	• Cost of regular upgrades, including cost to applying customizations to newer versions of software
	• Cost of dedicated hardware (if appropriate)
	• Ongoing technical staff support costs (i.e. application or system administration, bug-fixes for custom development, etc.)
	• Exit costs (i.e. estimate of time / cost to migrate from this solution when needed)

Build:

	• Cost of initial development activities (i.e. cost to develop to 1st release; includes time for related activities, such as documentation of code)
	• Cost of ongoing development activities (for new features or functions beyond 1st release)
	• Cost of dedicated hardware or hosted server infrastructure
	• Ongoing technical staff support costs (things like application or system administration, bug-fixes, application security patches, etc.)
	• Cost of developing user-support documentation
	• Exit costs (i.e. estimate of time / cost to migrate from this solution when needed)

In general, a Buy approach is easiest to determine TCO, while a Build approach is the most difficult. Generally, there are more unknowns with a Build than there are with a Buy. The more unknowns, the greater risk of inaccurate cost estimates.


When a proposal is reviewed by TAC, TAC will consider what solutions are available through each of the above approaches, and compare those options, along with their associated costs, in order to decide which approach and solution will best meet the needs of the UAL and the   service(s) requesting technology support. 

As part of this process, TAC will also review the service’s functional requirements, especially as relate to critical vs. desired elements; while ideally all requirements would be met by a particular technology solution, in practice functional requirements should reflect “must have” vs. “desired”, and the TAC may need to follow-up with stakeholders to better understand the impacts on a particular service if certain requirements are not able to be met through a particular approach or solution.

========================================


-- jaf

------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Frumkin
Assistant Dean / Chief Technology Strategist
University of Arizona Libraries

+1 520.626.7296
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."—Albert Einstein

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager