November 7, 2005
Present: Allen Berger, Chair. Sharon Nadeau, Dick Kimball, Tom Potter, Sue Hunter, Dana Humphrey, Dick Campbell, Bill Wells, Joanne Yestramski, Cindy Mitchell, Tracy Elliott, Tracy Bigney, Jim Breece, Elsa Nunez, Ralph Caruso
Feedback on One-Stop Campus Visits by Laurie Pruett and Jan Loomis:
UMF: The meeting went very well; campus reps were glad to hear they weren’t being given a single template to follow, but that the design of one-stop would be tailored to the particular needs and situations of the campus. The campus group is eager to begin work but needs a bit more guidance, including more concrete examples of one-stop centers that work, and those that don’t.
USM: Meeting also went very well, and the group wants to know next steps vis a vis work with consultant. How much help from the consultant and System will be forthcoming? More specifics about next steps needed.
UMA: A reaction similar to that of UMF and USM was expressed. The university will focus on areas of opportunity and cross-training. More clarity about consultants’ roles is needed; also how the one-stops will connect with the centralization piece.
UMaine: Meeting apparently went well. Prior to this visit, Sue Hunter had convened a group to talk about the one-stop. The current Stewart Dining Commons will ultimately become the one-stop (in 2007 or 2008); an interim one-stop in Wingate Hall where both financial aid and student records are located is being considered as the campus bridges the gap before Stewart Commons is available.
UMPI: The meeting included the same kinds of discussion about the role of and guidance to be provided by consultants. All components of the one-stop already are located in Preble Hall; there is nearly one-stop service there now, so the campus concerns are more about organizational structure than physical structure.
UMM: The administrative team is supportive of the one-stop concept, and the campus committee is pleased to know that the committee is taking the lead role in design. The same questions and unanswered topics as already mentioned. Overall, the meeting went very well.
Tracy Bigney asked whether we could do some of the cross-training in a more coordinated fashion. Allen suggested that some training might begin with job shadowing. Dick Campbell noted that at UMA each represented area lead will identify the six to ten most commonly asked questions that everyone should be able to answer—a core set of knowledge—and build shared understanding. Similarly, UMF is compiling FAQs from each office to create a manual with answers or where to go for answers. Bill Wells said that USM does not have the ability to train everyone to know everything, at least right now.
Allen addressed some overall concerns.
- The time frame for one-stop planning. The next significant event with Jan Loomis is not until the end of November. We want to launch the one-stops sometime over the summer. How do we structure the work, and what do we communicate to Jan about his role? We want to move ahead as quickly as possible, but not in the wrong direction. Information about other one-stop operations would be very helpful.
- One-stop planning thus far is happening in relative isolation from planning for the processing center. Is this a problem? Unless planners know more about the center, it’s difficult to know exactly what back office configuring should be part of the one-stop.
- We need clarity about common expectations. An example might be: “Students who come to the one-stop center for service should have their problems/questions addressed by a single person 80% of the time. Referrals to experts should occur only 20% of the time.” Goals need to be articulated and reasonable, and agreed upon. Elsa Nunez added that we do not want to be prescriptive about plans, but must consider what is best for our students.
- Jan’s original workplan includes a readiness survey scheduled for January. Are we already farther along than that seems to presuppose? It cannot be seen as the first step of the project.
The group agreed that the Steering Committee meeting scheduled for December 6 [since changed to December 14] should be an in-person meeting. Laurie Pruett will be charged with identifying specific “low-hanging fruit” for a discussion about the processing center. Jan Loomis should provide a set of guiding principles, examples of best practices, and a workplan. Dana Humphrey said it would be good to get reactions from various constituencies on campuses before endorsement of these items by the Steering Committee. Allen suggested that campus groups be encouraged to continue meeting; meanwhile, the Steering Committee will hear from Jan and Laurie.
Update on Document Management provided by Ralph Caruso:
- Perceptive Software from Kansas was selected as the vendor for document management; their price was 30-40% lower than other bids. Perceptive has a large number of higher ed clients, and the software integrates with both PeopleSoft and our legacy systems.
- John Grover will be the project manager, reporting to Ralph and Cindy.
- The System will provide the enterprise license, application support, and help desk support.
- Campuses will be responsible for scanning/viewing station(s) and possibly some departmental-unique training.
- Recurring expenses will include maintenance fees.
- Ralph will provide specifics about what is needed by various functional offices. Questions remain about where exactly the document imaging work will be done—in the central processing center? On the campuses?
- Value accrues with document management: documents are handled only once, security is improved, no copying is needed, nor is physical retention or manual filing.
- Planning is already underway for the first data conversion (USM financial aid), as is development of a training plan.
- Training will depend on the ultimate division between the one-stops and the center. Human issues are as much a concern here as technical ones. The training calendar must be integrated with all other ongoing training efforts as document management is incorporated in the rest of the work plan. Some training by the Project Enterprise training team may be possible; some training may need to be provided by the vendor.
- Technical support is needed. Does it already exist on a campus someplace that could be negotiated for this purpose? Joanne agreed that now is the time to be collaborative and provide support from campuses if it exists and is a good match.
- Jim Breece inquired about risk management and plans for data recovery in the event of server failure. Ralph agreed that we’ll work on some level of redundancy as we roll this out. We haven’t had a lot of outages except when power goes out, however, disaster recovery and business continuity in general are areas needing a lot of work, resulting in a plan to encompass both IT and functional units.
- Dana wondered about permissions, e.g. graduate applications. Ralph said that security and access issues are part of the project plan. Cindy noted that the need for this flexibility in security was factored in during the selection process and was one reason this vendor was selected. In general security will be as it is in PeopleSoft.
- By August 2006 we should have worked through the conversions at USM and be ready to go on Admissions (business process design in Admissions assumes the presence of document management, so it really needs to be there by July 31).
Cindy said that approximately 60% of applications received in the University System now are electronic; more would be better. Ralph suggested an incentive of some sort for more students to apply online rather than hard copy; some institutions waive the application fee for online apps. Jim cautioned that any financial incentive would need to be worked through at the presidential level.
PeopleSoft Update provided by Cindy Mitchell:
- Post go-live support is now being provided in Financials. GL effort is to finish allocations (moving money around before fiscal month can close), with a goal of closing July-October by the end of November.
- The greatest end-user demand is in purchasing/requisitions. A consultant will be engaged for a few months to help field user calls.
- Classes on using Discoverer are scheduled for November (48-50 slots are available). We’re trying to determine what reports users want and are using, and how we can best meet their reporting needs as we move forward.
- Issues raised by the CFOs are being looked at, as are functional issues on the issues log. Minor enhancements/customizations may result.
- Recruitment, Admissions and Campus Community are undergoing retro-IDPs because of the change to PeopleSoft version 8.9, with Admissions retro IDP nearly complete and 3Cs finishing tomorrow.
- Only two campus training coordinators for the Student Administrative Services implementations have been named (UM and USM). Please email names to Cindy as soon as possible. By January we need to hit the ground running with this. Cindy suggested that people who have been in the IDP sessions would be most knowledgeable. The coordinators need to help identify who on the campus needs training and be able to pull together people who will do training. Campus Community training will need to be campus based, but the Training Team will do as much central coordination and training as possible.
- Purchase of a fully integrated electronic application (from Oracle) is in negotiation.
- Cooperation is desperately needed between Human Resources and Student Records to complete data cleanup. HR departments need to understand the importance of getting these data cleaned up, as this is key to our having clean conversion data in July. Tracy Bigney agreed that data quality in HR is a concern for the University System as a whole, not just as part of this project, and asked that the Sponsors and Steering Committee stress the importance of this data cleanup effort.
- Student Records IDP with Michael DiSalvo from CedarCrestone has begun. Student Financials will meet on Wednesday with Darren-Michael Yocum, consultant, and Sharon Nadeau, functional SME. We’ll soon be hearing issues from these groups.
- HR upgrade began last week with Dennis Bortolus from CedarCrestone. Dennis had Individual sessions with representatives from System HR and Student Employment. This is the discovery phase: what do we have, what do we want to accomplish, what is our wish list. In late November campus HR folks will be pulled in. When plan is finalized, we’ll have go-live date for this upgrade.
- Infrastructure upgrades: PeopleTools (for financials) on November 13. This will change the look and feel of navigation a tiny bit. New Portal (supported version) on November 20. There will be web and/or listserv notifications of these upgrades.
- There are hardware and software minimum requirements for workstations for use with PeopleSoft (available on Project Enterprise website). Cindy expressed serious concerns, which Elsa reinforced, about those faculty whose old hardware won’t allow web-based work. This is an important issue as we begin to implement Student modules. Allen asked that Ralph communicate with campus CIOs asking for inventory and information about the gap between current and needed technology (especially for faculty).
- Safari/Benefactor implementation: by end of December the first reports (contributor profile) should be rolled out for alumni development offices. Joanne will arrange to meet with development group again.
Update on Common Policies:
Chief Academic Officers: Allen reported that the Chief Academic Officers had few challenges in reaching common policy in most policy areas. They did believe they needed SME input in some instances (example: limitations of PeopleSoft regarding incomplete grades). Allen will send email summarizing the CAOs’ work.
Chief Financial Officers: There is some crossover between CAO and CFO policy discussions. A combined meeting will be planned, perhaps in January, to reach agreements.
Student Financials: Business officers weren’t really sure what to do with the list they were given, and without a vision for the processing center and one-stops, felt they needed help. Some items need attention by CFOs (example: taking credit cards). Sharon Nadeau said that as the PeopleSoft system is built, there will naturally be much more commonality in issues, and some issues that are now on the list won’t be on the list as PeopleSoft is implemented. She also remarked that Student Financials in PeopleSoft can do so much more than we are now able to do.
Laurie’s center planning group has not yet met.
Summary of Action Items:
1. Cancel Sponsors meeting scheduled for tomorrow.
2. Training Coordinators for Student implementation needed from UMA, UMFK, UMM, and UMPI. Email names to Cindy.
3. Allen will send email summarizing CAOs’ work on common policies.
4. Chief Academic Officers and Chief Financial Officers will arrange joint meeting to discuss areas of common policy interest.
5. Sponsors and Steering Committee members must stress the importance of HR data cleanup effort.
6. Ralph will communicate with campus CIOs about current and needed hardware.
7. Allen, Joanne, Cindy, and Ralph will call Jan Loomis and address all points made at today’s meeting.
8. Laurie Pruett will be asked to identify specific “low-hanging fruit” for processing center discussion on December 6 [subsequently changed to December 14].
9. Jan Loomis will be asked to provide set of guiding principles, examples of best practices, and a workplan on December 6 [subsequently changed to December 14].
10. Sponsors and Steering Committee will meet in person on December 6. Nancy King in the System Office now has organizational duties for this group.
The meeting was adjourned.
Eddie Meisner, Recorder