1 Cost Transfer Redesign Team APR Sponsor Report-out April 12, 2010

2 Team Members Maurice JohnsonSchool of Medicine and Public Health Barb KeenanResearch & Sponsored Programs Mary KoscielniakResearch & Sponsored Programs Michelle MassenCollege of Letters & Science Veronica OlsonAccounting Services Nate RuschResearch & Sponsored Programs Adam WhitehorseSchool of Pharmacy Darlene WoodSchool of Medicine and Public Health Scott ConverseAPR Blackbelt

3 Goal –To reduce the total time campus is spending (processing time and volume) on cost transfers by 50% by Summer 2010 Focus –Time to complete a transfer –Volume or number of transfers –High audit risk transfers

4 Problem Statement –The current process for cost transfers are: Cumbersome Complex Paper-based –This results in significant delays in: Sponsored Project Invoicing Filing financial reports Closing out projects Certifying effort –They also represent a serious audit risk, as federal auditors have made them a top priority

5 Definition of a Cost Transfer –A cost transfer is a reallocation of a posted salary or non salary expense between established funding strings –Example #1 – Purchasing Card –Example #2 – Projects in Overdraft Non Salary vs Salary Non Sponsored vs Sponsored

6 Voice of Customer –Internal & External –Frustrations Not a priority (dept, dean’s office, RSP) It takes too long to get through system (info reviewed multiple times, rework) No tracking system Too many errors on form (clerical errors, missing signatures, justification, effort reporting)

Current State: –Cost to the University: at minimum $86/transfer 7 FY9Total Volume Process Steps/CTDays to Complete/CTAnnual Processing Costs NSCT6, days$436,000 SCT4, days$547,000

8 Types of Solutions –Presenting broad scope of solutions instead of detailing all (high level) –Affect all categories of cost transfers –Speed & Volume Major Solution Categories –Electronic Workflow or Paper Form Modification –Training –High Impact/ High Risk

Electronic Workflow Solution Addresses VOC frustrations Functionality and major features Reports and monitoring Complete solution for NSCT’s and a partial solution for SCT’s 9

HRS and Electronic Workflow Impacts Concerted effort to understand HRS Pinpointed limitations Electronic workflow helps solve some limitations Allows supporting documentation to flow to RSP Simplifies routing within RSP Limitations not addressed Still requires dual entry RSP matching workflow tool to HRS Workflow tool can work independent of HRS

Building the Electronic Workflow Tool –Service provider: Administrative Information Management Services (AIMS) –Start time: begin developing early Summer 2010 –Time estimate: 2-3 months for development –Cost estimate: $10,000/month of development 11

Training –Tactical Business practices & tools –Strategic Grants management training 12

Recommendations for Other APR Teams –Form Internal Billing team – already started –Create tool for PI’s to manage grant activity – PI Financials –Three items for Award Close-out Alert messages days before award end date Creation of clearing accounts Transfer to successor accounts 13

14 Before Speed Improvements Volume Reduction After +

High Impact / High Risk Solutions –Identify one cost transfer process owner –No transfer initiated if item is < $100 –Drop down list with reason categories –Establish auditor role –Delegate approval of sponsored to non-sponsored transfers to divisions by RSP –HRS potential to increase the number of SCT’s due to default funding 15

Next Steps –Receive sponsor approval –Build technical specification for electronic work flow –Connect with OHRD to plan grants management certification program –Set timelines, schedules, and rollout for approved solutions 16

17 Questions?