Staff Directory  |  Forms  |  Org Chart  |  About Us

Common IT Services Portfolio

The Common IT Services Portfolio is designed to ensure that campuswide services are strategically acquired, managed and funded. 

Additional benefits of this process and funding model are transparency, simplicity, and accountability; more predictability and consistency in IT service availability; cost savings and efficiencies; and service improvements. The services in the portfolio are funded through the campus General Overhead Assessment.

  • Common IT Services Portfolio Subcommittee responsibilities

  • This representative group makes recommendations about the services included in the portfolio and any new services to be added to the portfolio. The subcommittee recommends to the General Overhead Assessment Advisory Committee the associated costs to be included in the campus overhead assessment. Specifically, the subcommittee is responsible for the following:

    • Manage the annual process to review requests for services to be added to the portfolio and changes to services already in the portfolio. Identify criteria that must be met for mid-cycle proposals/decisions (e.g., to address critical security or regulatory issues).
    • Request additional funding from central campus (e.g., for implementation costs of new services) and request – via the General Overhead Assessment Advisory Committee –changes to the overhead assessment cost pool;
    • Periodically re-evaluate priorities for the Common IT Services Portfolio, including evaluation of retiring services; and
    • Provide regular reporting to the Provost and stakeholders.
    • The subcommittee does not have oversight of broader IT governance issues, such as deciding what IT services may or may not be used on campus.
  • Criteria

  • Services that will be considered for inclusion in the Common IT Services Portfolio should meet the following criteria:

    • Used by many or most UC Davis units
      • may include vendor-provided, open source, or locally developed IT services, regardless of hosting or delivery mechanisms
    • Have undefined or inadequate funding models, such as:
      • ongoing funding not established (e.g., annual “pass the hat”), or
      • current funding model is unbalanced (e.g., a small number of units subsidizing broad campus use), or
      • many units are purchasing separately (i.e., there are opportunities for significant savings based on consolidation to a single, higher volume contract)
    • Are not a core business application being delivered by the unit funded to provide that function (e.g., Aggie Enterprise provided by FOA or Banner provided by IET)
    • Have strong incentives/benefits for centralization/wider utilization, such as:
      • network effects (i.e., the service becomes more useful as more people from campus join), 
      • improved compliance/enhanced security/reduced risk (e.g., BigFix on more campus endpoints provides deeper insight into campus-wide security posture), and
      • improved efficiency (i.e., service provided centrally to many units, largely eliminating the need for those units to use unit staff time to provide those services)
    • Meet business needs that are not well met by existing campus services (i.e., services that do not yet exist on campus but should) to help fulfill the mission of the university
  • Costs in scope
  • See the IT Services Costing Template.
  • Services in the Common IT Services Portfolio

  • Detailed definitions of services currently included in the portfolio are available at: Service Definitions

    • Big Fix
    • Box
    • Microsoft Consolidated Licensing Agreement (CASA; previously MCCA)
    • Site Farm
    • Zoom
  •  New Proposals for Inclusion in the IT Common Services Portfolio

  • Proposals are evaluated by the subcommittee on an annual cycle, as outlined at: Central Assessments Overhead Model Request Workflow

    Units considering submitting a new proposal for FY2025-26 should email Emily Sanson-Smith immediately to discuss the proposed service prior to completing the proposal form and cost template.

    Proposals will require submission of an online proposal form and cost template by the assistant dean of finance or the chief operating or financial officer within the dean or vice chancellor level office, after approval by the dean or vice chancellor.