Urgent $30M Utilities Migration

3-Month Deadline, 300+ Critical Regulatory Assets, Zero Downtime

The Challenge

The building automation system (BAS) at the University of Denver was operating on proprietary hardware on a legacy Windows7 system, and the backup computer had just died. This hardware controlled 300+ critical HVAC assets across campus: Climate control for research labs with temperature-sensitive experiments, server rooms requiring precise cooling, and temperature control for administrative buildings and classrooms serving 12,000+ people.

The unexpected loss of the sole system operator impacted a grieving team, leaving them in a vulnerable position with no documentation and no historical knowledge of a high-risk infrastructure system. The ran on proprietary hardware on a Windows7 legacy system with security risks. IT and Info Security teams were unaware of the problem when I stepped in to migrate and decommission the old system. Failure would require $30M+ immediate infrastructure replacement.

The constraints:

• The unexpected death of a colleague left no historical knowledge behind
• The legacy system was on a failing Legacy Windows7 computer 
• The only other person familiar with the system left years ago
• Ownership from departments (IT, Info Security, Facilities) with conflicting priorities
• The original open-source code platform was privatized, increasing costs $30M+

My Role

Project Management and Systems Operations Analyst responsible for legacy system migration

Key Responsibilities:

• Cross-departmental Project Management, gathering requirements gathering across 3 departments
• Platform specifications and System diagram identifying entry/end points of front and back-end systems
• Server and Asset specification and validation, identity management, and cross-functional testing
• Data governance framework development
• Centralized documentation, and collaborative workspace for each team
• Weekly working sessions and iterative communications for different audiences

Commended by Director of CyberOps for leading project management and priortizing time-sensitive, mission-critical infrastructure project with conflicting stakeholder priorities.

Approach

Crisis Assessment (Week 1):

• Inherited zero technical documentation
• Interviewed Facilities HVAC Director to document high-risk concerns and requirements
• Discovered platform was running on Windows Server 2003 (unpatchable security vulnerabilities)
• Backwards-compatible software for older utility equipment was stalled
• Facilities needed to migrate the system from an old computer after the backup failed

Resource Coordination (Weeks 1-2):

• I hunted down an old admin, an employee who left a few years prior to take a job at another company
• Created MS Teams group centralizing resources for cross-functional teams
• Built collaborative Excel workbook tracking:
  1. System specifications
  2. Data ownership
  3. Technical dependencies
  4. Risk assessment
• I mapped system dependencies visually (shown below in the diagram, identifying transactional system handoffs between Operations, vendors, IT, and Info Security)

This visual diagram became essential for: Translating technical constraints to non-technical stakeholders, High-level PowerPoint presentations with leadership, and Board communications (directors leveraged my diagram as an asset in their own presentations to expedite requests).

Stakeholder Alignment (Ongoing):

• Led weekly standups with detailed agendas and project tracker
• Built trust between Facilities Admins and IT (historically siloed)
• Brokered compromise: isolate legacy system on separate network during migration testing (satisfied IT Security’s immediate concerns while allowing Facilities time to validate)

Reverse Engineering & Migration (Weeks 2-12):

• Spent 3 weeks mapping every sensor, control sequence, and alarm condition through systematic testing
• Coordinated IT, Operations, and vendor resources for phased migration
• Conducted after-hours testing to avoid operational impact
• Built redundant failsafes and disaster recovery protocols

The Results

On-Time Delivery:

• Completed migration in 3 months (met challenging deadline)
• Zero operational downtime during migration
• 100% of assets successfully migrated to virtual machine

_____

Financial Impact:

• Avoided $30M+ capital expenditure
• Eliminated infrastructure replacement costs
• Preserved operational continuity within budget constraints

_____

Risk Mitigation:

• Eliminated 100% of security vulnerabilities
• Documented system for future operators (no longer single-person dependent)
• Established disaster recovery protocols that didn’t exist before

_____

Organizational Impact:

• Developed trust between Facilities and IT departments
• Created reusable visual framework for complex technical communications
• Enabled leadership to communicate system dependencies to Board effectively

Solutions to Key Challenges

Zero Documentation

No technical specifications, no process documentation, no training materials. Everything was in the retired operator’s head.

Solution: Reverse-engineered system through systematic testing. Spent 3 weeks documenting every sensor, control sequence, and alarm condition by observation and trial. Created comprehensive documentation for future operators.

_____

IT Security vs. Facilities Conflict

IT Security demanded immediate decommissioning (security risk). Facilities refused to accept downtime risk (operational continuity). Vendor claimed migration impossible (recommended $30M replacement).

Solution: Brokered compromise using network isolation and trust by fostering relationships between stakeholders. Moved the legacy system to separate network segment with enhanced monitoring, satisfying IT Security’s immediate concerns while giving Facilities time to validate migration. Negotiated phased rollout to preserve ownership with Facilities without requiring IT to access the failing equipment directly.

_____

Cross-Departmental Coordination

Teams operated in silos with different priorities, vocabularies, and risk tolerances.

Solution: Created shared visual language (system dependency diagram) that all stakeholders could understand at different levels. Ran structured weekly standups keeping everyone aligned on priorities and deliverables. Built collaborative Excel workbook and centralized access for all teams, and democratized data.

Visual Artifacts Created

System Dependency Diagram

• Mapped transactional handoffs between Operations, vendors, IT, Info Security
• Showed data inputs/outputs at each integration point
• Identified single points of failure and redundancy gaps
• Used by directors for Board communications

_____

Risk Register (Excel)

• Tracked identified risks with likelihood and impact scores
• Documented mitigation strategies and ownership
• Updated weekly in stakeholder meetings
• Became template for future infrastructure project

_____

Project Tracker

• Weekly progress dashboard
• Blockers and resolution status
• Resource allocation and dependencies
• Shared across all stakeholder groups

_____

Tools & Methods

• Cross-functional Collaboration: MS Teams, Excel (collaborative workbooks)
• Project Management: Weekly standups, detailed agendas, progress tracking
• Visual Communication: System dependency diagrams, PowerPoint presentations
• Risk Management: Risk register, mitigation planning, scenario modeling
• Technical: Windows Server migration, HVAC automation platform, network isolation

_____

What I Learned

The technical work was straightforward once we had documentation. The hard part was keeping stakeholder relationships aligned when everyone had competing priorities and different definitions of “success.” The relationships I developed united a new team and developed trust between two separate departments.

Building visual artifacts that translated technical complexity into business language was essential. Directors used my system dependency diagram for their own Board communications because it made complex infrastructure dependencies understandable at a glance.

Success wasn’t perfection—it was operational continuity within budget and timeline constraints. Knowing when to negotiate phased rollout (vs. pushing for unrealistic complete delivery) kept the project on track.