1. Effort Reporting A Collaborative Experience Jon Good Director, Enterprise Systems Development University of California, Office of the President Jon.Good@ucop.edu Copyright Jon Good 2006. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

2. The University of California 10 Campuses 5 Campus-affiliated Medical Centers UC Office of the President (UCOP) 207,000 Students 121,000 Employees Decentralized Business and IT Operations

3. MC The University of California San Francisco Davis Irvine Los Angeles Merced Riverside San Diego Berkeley Santa Barbara Santa Cruz UCOP

4. Sponsored Research at UC Volume of activity from grants and contracts for UC in FY 03-04: Amount % Federal C&G$2.62 Billion68.5 State Agencies $397 Million10.4 Private$654 Million17.1 Local Governments$153 Million 4.0 TOTAL$3.82 Billion 100%

5. What is Effort Reporting?

6. Why is Effort Reporting Important? Risk Exposure (You know who you are): –One university received audit disallowances related to problems with effort reporting of $5.5 Million on a grants and contract base of $325 Million in FY01-02 –Another university returned $ 4.1 Million to the federal government to settle a number of charging issues, including effort reporting –Yet another university paid a total of $2.1 Million to settle the NIH salary limitation disallowance for the period 7/1/95 through 6/30/02

7. Objectives for a New ERS Replace 1982-vintage paper based Achieve Uniformity of Effort Reporting Across UC Support of Good Business Practices: –Meeting fiduciary and stewardship responsibilities –Maintaining Credibility with Funding Agencies, External Donors and Constituent Groups –Facilitating user convenience and responsiveness –Encouraging active participation by faculty and staff required to complete an Effort Report

8. Project Evolution Initiation –2001 – Controllers Identify Need for New Effort Reporting Process The First Attempt: –Early 2002 – RFP Process Started –March 2003 – RFP Process Abandoned – Too Expensive (estimated $8M-$10M total software and campus implementation costs) The Second Attempt: –June 2003 – Campus-based initiative begins with Requirements Phase –March 2004 – Funding commitment for development phase obtained –June 2004 – Development phase begins –February 2006 – Planned base ERS release

9. First Attempt - Consultation One UCOP administrator put in charge of finding a vendor solution (bid), working with and obtaining consensus of campus representatives among: –Budget and Planning Officers –Controllers –Research Administrators –Extramural Funds Managers –Internal Auditors –Information Technology

10. What’s Wrong With These Requirements? The effort reporting system must enable the University to comply with OMB Circular A-21, Section J.8. The effort reporting system will require linkages with existing campus information systems. Generate electronic certification reports (and hardcopy reports when needed) with calculated effort percentages based on payroll distribution; Identify responsible officials whose approval and/or certification is required, and distribute the reports to the identified officials; Send electronic notices and reminders to individual required to certify their effort and to designated officials (e.g., department coordinator); Identify instances where certified effort is less than the percentage of payroll shown for any federal or federal flow-through award, and when approved, initiate a payroll transfer transaction; Initiate a new effort certification process if a retroactive payroll transfer occurs after the employee’s effort has been certified for the payroll period being adjusted; Recognize funds (e.g., from the National Institutes of Health) with salary cap restrictions, take the restrictions into account when calculating the charged payroll percentages, and provide additional administrative support to ensure compliance with the restriction; Quantify the value of cost shared effort by project; Flag total sponsored effort exceeding a specified percentage for employees with non- sponsored duties such as instruction and/or patient care; Ability to create variety of ad-hoc reports based on data contained in the system. Answer: Too much for a single slide. However, not much more was stated in the RFP!

11. First Attempt - Outcomes Scope of work was broad Bids were high (> $3 Million) Campus implementation costs were estimated at $500K to $1.5M per campus The only points of consensus: –Everyone was reluctant to move forward with a vendor solution (bid process abandoned) –Everyone involved had less than good feelings about the outcome

12. Challenges Moving Forward Establishing clear ownership for the project Re-establishing credibility for any process leading to a solution Moderating the attitude that a solution needed to be found quickly Narrowing the project scope Keeping everyone informed

13. The Foundation of the Collaboration In conjunction with key executives: –Identified an oversight and decision-making structure –Selected a proven IT project approach –Started looking for sponsors

14. Sponsors Stepped Forward San Francisco Davis Irvine Los Angeles Merced Riverside San Diego Berkeley Santa Barbara Santa Cruz UCOP

15. Sponsors Agreed to Major Steps Phase I – Requirements Definition Buy/Build Decision Obtain Funding for Phase II Phase II - Development

16. Sponsors Agreed to Phase I Consultative Structure ERS Management Group (Sponsors) Campus Department Representatives Requirements Committee Campus Liason

17. The Start of Collaboration All participants committed both time and direct financial support to the project Management Group and Work Groups were to include broad representation Meeting notes formalized as a record of actions and key discussions Consultation Comprehensiveness Scope Control

18. Phase I Outcomes Clear and detailed requirements definition completed and widely reviewed Policy issues identified Scope of requirements whittled down Countless positive dialogues about objectives, requirements, and process Participants felt good about the process Estimate for in-house development provided

19. Build/Buy Decision Decision to Build made quickly UCOP selected to develop system on behalf of campuses

20. Funding Model 5 Sponsoring Campuses and UCOP contribute equal shares towards requirements definition and development phases Additional voluntary resource contributions from all sponsors

21. Sponsors Agreed to Phase II Consultative Structure ERS Management Group (Sponsors) CIOs (from sponsor campuses) IT Project Manager Campus Department Representatives Design & Programming Staff Requirements Committee Campus Technical Advisory Group Campus Liason

22. Extra Consultation Campus Working Groups –Meet periodically –Reviews rollout plans –Provides feedback on prototypes and/or design issues –Identifies local operational issues

23. Technical Project Management Modified Waterfall Approach Clear Project Plan Clearly identified deliverables Clear Resource Requirements

24. Base Effort Reporting System Scope

25. Address Different Technology Bases and Feeder Systems San Francisco Davis Irvine Los Angeles Merced Riverside San Diego Berkeley Santa Barbara Santa Cruz UCOP

26. Technical Requirements Platform-independent for operation in all campus environments In other words, technical solution must be agnostic with respect to: –Web Server –Application Server –Data Base Management System Integrate with campus systems and services

27. Heavy Investment in Communications and Training Planning underway early ( > 6 months before base ERS release) Developed detailed grid of target audiences and messages for campus rollouts Developed communications strategy and detailed plan Developed training strategy and detailed plan Developing base communications and training materials for campus customization and use Piloting communications and training materials along with the new system

28. Phase II – Where Are We Now? On target to release Base ERS Feb. 2006 Campus rollout planning underway Training materials being finalized Under budget

29. Lessons Learned or Reaffirmed Plan carefully Customers/Sponsors MUST be involved Communication MUST be clear and continuous ALL parties with a stake in the outcome must be involved in the details Listen carefully Write everything down, document, communicate, publish Be patient Keep a constant eye on details Establish and maintain a positive working relationship

30. What’s Really Different? Campus-based initiative for a common UC-wide business solution Collaboration among a subset of all campuses leading to a UC-wide solution Campuses funding the initiative

31. What’s Next? Getting non-sponsor campuses to buy in to the solution Keeping an eye open for other collaboration opportunities among the campuses Identified potential opportunities for similar collaborations among departments at UCOP Setting a new model for the way IT solutions are examined across UC, within individual campuses, within UCOP

32. Questions? Jon.Good@ucop.edu