1. Developing an Electronic Dossier System for UCLA Faculty: Planning Proposal Presentation to Committee on IT Infrastructure November 30, 2010 1

2. Problems with Current System Faculty dossiers are compiled manually and are not standardized across campus A single paper copy and publication box with hard copy of articles is shipped from place to place Review typically must occur in chair’s office Data cannot be used for reporting or for generating campus statistics Cost estimated at $10.3 million/year 2

3. Proposal To request a planning grant to develop our plan for implementing an electronic dossier system System would include: – Electronic generation of dossiers with common format – Ability for faculty to generate other CVs (e.g., NIH grants) – Hot links for faculty publications – Preparation of reviews (deans, chairs, outside letters) on line – Ability for all reviewing agencies to conduct electronic review on own computers – Ability for campus and faculty to track accomplishments for fundraising/grants – Potential to have all recruitment activities done on line 3

4. Anticipated Benefits Time savings, cost savings, paper savings – Electronic dossiers available online (reduced/minimal copying costs) – Accurate data (reduced time verifying and tracking down numbers) – Streamlined process that yields staff and faculty efficiencies in both preparation and review – Enhanced capabilities (e.g., grants, development) 4

5. Previous Activities Study and visit the four UC campuses with electronic systems: Davis, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco Establishment of and recommendations from joint “Committee on Developing Electronic Dossier and Review Systems at UCLA” (distributed in advance). Conclusion: “…the campus should begin the process of developing an electronic dossier system immediately” [including] “both an electronic dossier and review system” Interviews with key administrators, faculty, and staff Presentations and endorsements from EVC-Provost, CAP, Deans, and Restructuring Steering Committee 5

6. From the Joint Committee “We believe that now is the time to move forward. The current system is inefficient and lends itself to numerous mistakes at every state of the process. An enormous amount of time is being spent on compiling data, checking for accuracy, returning dossiers back to departments because of errors, etc. And, because information not stored electronically and centrally, the same steps are taken to ensure an accurate and complete dossier in a past review are oftentimes required and repeated in the next review.” 6

7. Conclusions from Other Campus Systems Systems need to be tailored to each campus’ needs Fully interactive systems (e.g., not unsearchable pdf’s) is essential Faculty input and buy-in is essential Implementation time has varied from 2-8 years, total costs approx. $1.5 - $2 million 7

8. Is a Product Already Available that will Meet UCLA’s Needs? 8 Existing System Best Feature Critical Functional flaws Technical challenges UCSF - Advance Most parts of dossier digitized; functional on-line outside letter module Publication citations not stored as data; based on a Medical format Built in Java (would need to build Java & Oracle capabilities) UCR - eFile The "Difference" list Relies on paper for letters & recommendation; no split or joint appointments Built in Java & Oracle UCD - myinfovault A robust data gathering application Not a full solution (no electronic academic history) Dependent on other systems & built in Java & Oracle UCSD - Ap Online Usability and ease of eDossier creation Comprised of PDFs and not data No data for reporting needs or Research Grant Bio needs UCLA Dossier Data for the Life Sciences division and Engineering No online review or online outside letter review Written in an insecure and out of date platform (.asp) Each campus has determined “No”

9. Proposed Timeline Estimate Implementation and Improvement Pilots and Demonstrations DevelopmentPlanning Feb – Oct ‘11Nov ‘11– Aug ‘12Sept ‘12 – June ‘13July ‘13 – June ‘14 9 At this time, we are requesting funds to support the Planning phase; however we anticipate that resource support will be extended into the subsequent phases.

10. Next Steps Use planning grant to: – Hire project team leadership: Overall Project Leader Functional Lead Technical Lead – Establish planning committee comprised of cross- functional staff participate in design review sessions – Establish design committee to provide higher-level input on system design (Senate input essential) – Prepare for development/implementation phases 10

11. Proposed Planning Team Design Committee Provide high-level design requirements and performance expectations Senate Leadership Deans Chairs Other Key Constituents Functional Lead (Full-Time) Technical Lead (Full-Time) Overall Project Leader (Full-Time) Overall project planning Project communication Project coordination Planning and budgeting User requirements definition and validation User interface Technical requirements definition Technical architecture Cross-Functional Planning Committee Participate in user design and review sessions (committee meeting participation only) 11 The Design Committee Provides Overall Governance. The Cross-Functional Planning Committee Provides Support and Periodic Validation The Full-Time Project Leader Manages the Overall Project and Makes Day-to-Day Decisions.

12. Proposed 9-Month Planning Budget Staff Project Leader Functional Lead Technical Lead Salary $120,000 $ 90,000 12 Benefits $36,000 $27,000 12-Month $156,000 $117,000 9-Month $115,625 $ 86,375 Other* Out of Pocket Software Hardware 12-Month* $20,000 $ 4,500 $12,000 9-Month* $20,000 $ 4,500 $12,000 Total:$426,500$324,875 *The Other Costs are the same regardless of a 12-month or 9-month planning budget.