Strategic Plan
As required by Board of Governors
in response to goals for the
State System of Higher Education for
fiscal years 2000/2001 to 2002/2003 - Goal 1-1
Click here
to view the PDF version of this document. [480KB]
Table of Contents:
-
-
- Public accountability, competition for students, cost escalations, limited resources,
scarcity of information technology personnel, and changing customer needs and expectations
are just a few of the many challenges facing the State System of Higher Education early in
the new millennium. Over the past decade, the minimum standards and expectations of universities
regarding the use of new technologies have increased dramatically. In order for the entire
State System to achieve its mission and goals outlined in university business plans, new,
enterprise-wide administrative systems technologies must be implemented within the next five
to seven years.
In the era of the technologically driven economy, higher education must radically re-engineer
its administrative processes to remain competitive and provide state-of the-art services to
increasingly more sophisticated and diverse user constituencies. As the Commonwealth's universities,
the State System has a unique role and responsibility to not only provide a "traditional"
educational experience but, importantly, to provide access to human capital enhancing opportunities
to all citizens of the Commonwealth.
Emerging Technology-Based Demands
The face of higher education has clearly changed in the last decade. Over the first half of
the new millennium, our traditional understanding of education and learning will be transformed
by emerging technology. The demand for integrated, on-line services will call into question
many of our traditional student services delivery mechanisms that for many are perceived to
be part of a the "academic experience." Already we are seeing changes in the expectations
of the citizens of the Commonwealth with regards to their ability to register for and complete
a course without ever setting foot on a campus - to do so on their schedules, not ours - and
to receive credit towards a degree or a certificate at any one of, or indeed, any combination
of our 14 institutions.
Universities will need to look to such technological capabilities as enterprise information
portals, online learning tools, customer (student) relationship management systems, and eBusiness
to effectively streamline business processes, foster informed decision-making and to enhance
the overall academic experience for all current and future students.
To deliver high-level accessibility and achieve our goals with regards to accountability and
performance based funding, the lack of timely, comparable and consistent information on performance
measures for individual universities presents an unacceptable impediment. To achieve our vision
of collaboration, integration and accountability, we recognize the need to carefully evaluate
our circumstances and our technological options.
Information technologies are available that would provide the infrastructure necessary for
the State System and its universities to become flexible and agile in response to external
pressures and internal needs. Emerging, new technologies will empower university administrative
and staff end-users to implement changes in processes without reliance on direct support from
information technology professionals. These technologies will also provide truly integrated
databases while permitting process modifications in functional areas and across universities
seamlessly - ensuring that process changes can occur in a "just-in-time" manner.
State of the System's Responsiveness
Nearly two years ago, as part of the Systemic Change Initiative, we recognized the importance
of upgrading our information technology support services - particularly those systems that
provide information about, and manage the operational activities of our universities. At that
time, some of our universities had begun the complex process of implementing new systems and
many more were in the process of evaluating their software options. As is common in higher
education, each State System institution approached solutions based on their unique institutional
perspective and available resources.
Obtaining, implementing, and creating a state-of-the-art, enabling technological environment
is a challenge unto itself. Many universities lack the resources to independently acquire
truly state-of-the-art tools. Costs of procurement and implementation of Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) solutions in higher education have been increasing over time - primarily due
to the rapid increases in IT salaries over the past decade. Similarly, the availability of
information technology professionals to manage and maintain local systems is limited. The
costs of acquiring the necessary, highly skilled professional staff for each of the fourteen
System universities is clearly prohibitive.
The IT professionals at our campuses have done a commendable job in delivering the best systems
possible, given the real limitations in resources available to our universities. The work
of these individuals and the presidents of the individual universities who have made the difficult
decisions with respect to institutional priorities should be recognized. Whether the sacrifice
was the technology implementation or other pressing needs, the choices have not been easy
ones.
Clearly, the Board of Governors initiatives are not meant to be either a direct or "veiled"
criticism of the efforts of administrators and staff on our campuses with regards to the implementation
of administrative systems locally. It must be recognized that our historical characterization
of these problems as local university operational concerns, it becomes the responsibility
of university leadership to find solutions that best meet the needs and budgetary realities
of each university.
Faced with local constraints, deliberate and responsible action at the campus level has naturally
led to a diversity of solutions. These systems are expensive to acquire and maintain and generate
redundant costs at each institution. Given the real costs involved, the quality and scope
of technology implementation has varied by university depending on the allocation of campus
resources and the structuring of university priorities. Of the State System universities,
those who chose to make significant investments in technology by sacrificing other priorities
acquired more sophisticated systems. Those less able, or who faced more pressing priorities,
attempted what was necessary and possible. In many instances, systems were built utilizing
the "'sweat-equity" of university staff. A natural focus on local concerns and processes has
led to a situation wherein several universities that utilize common applications (same software)
have implemented them in significantly different ways.
Individual university software solutions (quite unintentionally) are fragmented from a System-wide
perspective, utilize a widely varying vocabulary (inconsistent definitions), and limit our
ability to seamlessly share data across the System universities. Divergences in data definitions
and process designs are also a significant barrier to collaboration, data exchange and comparative
performance outcomes measurements.
Some have argued that the problem can remain a local university one. In such a scenario, the
deployment of new technologies, implemented at varying levels by individual universities over
the course of the next decade may appear to represent "low-cost" solutions as expenditures
are distributed over time and across universities. That is, costs and benefits are viewed
from a local university perspective. Taken in the aggregate, the value of lost benefits to
the State System (and hence, the Commonwealth) resulting from implementation redundancy ('re-inventing
the wheel' 14 times), inconsistent or unavailable functionality and divergent processes and
data will be enormous.
At those universities where new administrative systems have been implemented, the benefits
are self-evident - giving these universities a (relative) competitive advantage over their
sister institutions and perhaps other non-System universities. From a System-wide perspective
the inability to provide technology-based support services on a consistent basis to all of
its universities places the State System as a whole at a competitive disadvantage. The State
System's competitiveness, while not a direct indicator of its performance relative to its
mandated public mission, does provide an important measure of its operational efficiency relative
to its peers - which Board of Governors have deemed significant and determined to solve utilizing
an enterprise-wide solution.
Collaborative, System-Wide Action
Given the size of and need for significant investment in technology at our institutions, we
have determined that only through a collaboration and pooling of our resources will the State
System be successful and cost effective in acquiring state-of-the art, compatible systems
for all State System universities.
This should not be surprising. Faced with the similar pressures to improve systems that are
very expensive, the Commonwealth and many corporations have reached identical conclusions.
Indeed, several other state systems have pursued such collaborative solutions and some private
universities have banded together to lower costs while maximizing their ERP investments. The
Commonwealth is already moving forward with a consolidation of information technology systems
through enterprise-class solutions. We have, consistent with the Commonwealth, determined
that the State System must consolidate its administrative support technologies utilizing a
solution that is enterprise-wide yet meets the individual needs of our fourteen universities.
These technologies will allow our students to access services at all of our universities remotely
and at multiple universities seamlessly. The personal costs to students in time and money
for things such as registration, receiving financial aid and making payments will be significantly
reduced over time. Simultaneously, the quality of such services will be greatly enhanced.
Alternatively, these technologies will make our universities more agile in re-engineering
our operating processes in response to the needs of our students and the Commonwealth. Over
time the consolidation of operations will also serve to reduce the costs of services provided.
Through integrated databases and interoperable processes, the shared administrative system
initiative will allow us to quickly implement "best-practices" at our universities while providing
sophisticated tools to all universities at a consistent level across the System. Most importantly,
the use of currently available technologies will not result in a "regression-to-the-mean"
outcome wherein the levels of functionality at some universities are diminished while those
of others are improved. The functionality of all universities will be significantly and perceptibly
improved.
Technological Objectives
The State System and its universities need: 1) a state-of-the-art, integrated and flexible
transactions management system based on open systems architecture to support all System universities
and related entities; 2) a technological solution that ensures the consistency of data and
information across universities for both executive information systems (decision support and
assessment purposes) as well as integrated inter-university real-time transactions processing;
and 3) a technological infrastructure that facilitates rapid process re-engineering - enabling
functional area managers that are responsible for the delivery of services to implement new
processes and recognizes that information technology is not all of the solution or a panacea,
but rather, is a tool to promote productive change.
To do so will require acceptance of the following objectives: 1) information technology investments
must be more effectively managed and tied directly to performance and results; and 2) in order
to maximize information technology investments, we seek an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
solution that delivers an enterprise-wide solution as opposed to the traditional university-specific
or "silo" based implementations of the past.
Technological choices can at best define "how" we conduct the business of running our academic
institutions. Despite our best intentions, the information technology explosion of the past
decade has, without a doubt, become a driver of change. Paradoxically it has also brought
home the fact that many of our historical choices in defining the operations of our universities
are driven by technological opportunities ("industrial-era" mainframe programs) and not "our
best thoughts" regarding process and practice. "How" should be driven by "why" - as technological
change drives us all to re-examine and redefine ourselves, we must take care to remember that
technology should not be applied simply for its own sake.
Emerging technologies are powerful enablers of individual flexibility and self-expression.
The goal of creating an integrated, shared administrative system - particularly one that fully
adheres to the "user empowerment" hallmark of "new" technology (as differentiated from the
centralized control or "cookie-cutter" paradigms of the past) - should not be viewed as an
attempt to diminish the value of our individual universities or functional areas within and
across institutions. Recent experience notwithstanding, technology should be the vehicle for
change, not the driver - increasing our collective responsibility to "get ahead of the changes"
if we are to manage them to our advantage.
In what follows, we develop a summary of "why" we have arrived at the goal of a shared system
and, in part, why we make the specific technological recommendation that appears in later
sections. Where old technological choices limit our ability to address our goals, they clearly
must be replaced by technological choices that allow us to achieve them.
Whatever their merits otherwise, the emerging information technologies will continue to drive
us towards collaborative, cross-functional efforts and increasingly away from the (perhaps
more comfortable) segregated and clearly differentiated organizational reporting/responsibility
structures of the past. Information technologies generally, and the shared administrative
system specifically, will cut across the boundaries of functional areas ("functional silos,"
or, "network(s) of one") and individual universities.
We will discover that both within and across universities, we are - unavoidably - collectively
responsible for our collective goals. Our greatest challenge will perhaps not be the technology,
but rather our ability to work collaboratively to achieve success as individuals, as individual
universities and as a State System.
Summary of Recommendations
In summary, our recommendations are that all System-wide information technology efforts be
reorganized as a System-level operational unit functioning as a consortium of the State System.
Furthermore, as the major operational activity of the consortium, we recommend the transitioning
over a period of five to seven years, of all fourteen universities to a shared administrative
system developed in collaboration with the State System universities and the Unisys/SAP partnership.
In addition, it is recommended that the consortium also oversee the management of the implementation
of the data warehouse and the consolidation of all other shared information technology and
technical support services within a single-point of service for all State System entities.
-
- Over the course the past decade, significant events in the life of the State System have
led to series of ongoing and evolving strategic initiatives. As a system, the State System
of Higher Education has chosen to define itself to be a system of dynamic and responsive institutions,
capable of reformulating itself to meet its mandated service to the Commonwealth in the face
of an ever-changing economic and educational environment.
It is useful to review the more recent history of strategic planning documents, initiatives,
goals and objectives. This review will reveal not only the driving forces that have lead to
the shared system initiative - currently, Goal 1-1 of the Goals for the State System of Higher
Education for Fiscal Years 2000/2001 to 2002/2003 - but, perhaps, also shed light on the objectives
that it is meant to achieve. This review will cover highlights from the following documents:
Imperatives for the Future; the Systemic Change Initiative; the Convergence Report & Integrated
Action Plan; Goals for the State System of Higher Education for Fiscal Years 2000/2001 to
2002/2003; and Imperatives Affirmed. It should be noted that the review includes strategic
plans and objectives that are impacted on by the shared administrative system initiative at
a variety of levels - extending from direct involvement to a supportive role. Clearly, information
technology is an enabler of the work of others and should not be viewed as the "owner" of
that work - the exception being, specific IT tools, programming and process designs that are
required by one or more strategic initiatives, goals or objectives. Nonetheless, as a partner
in achievement of the mission, vision, strategic goals and objectives of the State System,
those who are tasked with the implementation of this plan must recognize their accountability
to the Board of Governors, the Office of the Chancellor, and the universities for both its
narrow and broad outcomes.
Imperatives for the Future
In 1996, the State System of Higher Education's Board of Governors adopted Imperatives for
the Future, A Plan for Pennsylvania's State System of Higher Education. The "vision" articulated
in Imperatives for the Future begins, revealingly, with: "Pennsylvania's State System of Higher
Education will serve the Commonwealth ever more effectively as a dynamic, technologically
advanced, integrated network of publicly owned universities focused on learning...."
The Imperatives document states that in order for the State System to realize its vision as
an accountable, collaborative, increasingly integrated network of universities focused on
learning, the State System needs to commit itself to three major initiatives that are considered
imperative to the future of public higher education--Focus on Learning, Collaboration and
Integration, and Accountability. Below, we highlight some of the passages from the three imperatives
and the four system goals as they relate to the shared information systems initiative.
Focus on Learning
The sharpened focus on learning--on the outcome of education, rather than the input--is the
natural extension and the latest expression of these three trends. It is reinforced by an
increasing emphasis on accountability and by recent calls for increased "learning productivity,"
i.e., enabling students to learn more in a given period of time through more flexible delivery
systems. The State System's initiative to focus on learning is, then, a commitment to the
continuous improvement of the quality of education offered by the universities... American
higher education in the 21st century will provide a spectrum of choices for learners, ranging
from the truly traditional to the truly transformed... Higher education will be responding
not only to the various learning styles and needs of students in their classrooms, but also
to the interests, time frames, and specific needs of a much broader clientele of lifelong
learners. In this arena, information technology no longer will be simply a means of strengthening
teaching and learning; it will transform teaching and learning... "Networked learning" will
enable workers to access the information and knowledge and develop the new skills they need
in a rapidly changing workplace. Rather than credits, degrees, and other traditional indicators
of higher education, the emphasis more and more will be on learning--with the what, where,
when, and how tailored to the learner.
...Curricula, including the General Education curriculum, will require ongoing revision based
on students' needs and learning outcomes. Learning how to use existing and evolving technologies
to enhance and structure learning in entirely new ways will be an ongoing challenge... Finally,
since learning is the major mission of State System universities, and students are the major,
though not the only, clientele, all institutional structures and functions should be aligned
to support learning and meet clients' needs. Administrators and staff will bear primary responsibility
for insuring that administrative and instructional support functions enable faculty and students
to pursue the goal of learning as effectively and conveniently as possible... they [will]
develop new ways to support and reinforce student learning, expand services to new and diverse
clientele, and maintain a campus environment that supports the focus on learning.
Collaboration and Integration
...This new organizational dynamic, often facilitated by technology, focuses on "systems thinking,"
i.e., the interrelationships among parts and processes and the value added by such interaction.
The era of the stand-alone organization--or the isolated "ivory tower" institution--is gone.
Both systems thinking and collaboration are key features of the "learning organization," described
in Peter M. Senge's widely read book, The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization (1990)... Collaboration is not new to the State System... But recent fiscal,
philosophical, educational, and technological changes call for much more--and more deliberate
and structured... colleges and universities must become more nearly interchangeable nodes
on an expanding educational network, and, as individual institutions, they must become more
distinctive and discernible from one another... Collaborative endeavors across administrative
units also will increase with the sharing of expertise and integrated approaches to common
objectives.
Accountability
...In the new higher education environment we must broaden accountability and communicate
more effectively what we are doing... While seeking input from a broad range of groups, we
also must communicate broadly a strong, consistent, fact-based picture of the State System
of Higher Education. Today's communication technologies make it possible for us to "tell the
State System story" to people across the Commonwealth and across the nation. Accountability
will mean little if we fail to communicate to the general citizenry and to policy makers,
parents, public school partners, alumni, business leaders, and others, what the State System
of Higher Education is, who and how it serves, and the many ways that it adds value to Pennsylvania.
Strategic Goals
Strategic Goal 1: Diverse and nontraditional student members.
...Given the opportunities created by new technologies and new efficiencies within the State
System of Higher Education, we should be able to expand educational access to citizens of
the Commonwealth at the same time that we continue to enhance the quality of our educational
programs ...Recommendations: ... Implement an electronic multi-university application process
that will enable prospective students to identify all System universities they would consider
attending. Students unable to enroll at one university due to limited program capacity, rather
than lack of qualifications, may be referred to a comparable program at a sister university;
... Using the existing Visiting Student Program policy as a framework, create an "academic
passport" to facilitate transfer among System universities and enable students, with advance
approval, to receive full credit for courses completed at a sister university; ... Use distance
education technologies to access courses from sister (or other) universities and participate
in consortia involving other colleges and universities and electronic delivery systems to
continue providing access to some limited enrollment academic programs and enhance the quality
of others; ... Expand access to State System graduate programs through sharing resources,
using distance education technologies, and developing more flexible and imaginative program
structures and course scheduling, recognizing that more working adults are seeking graduate
education, but are unable to pursue it in the traditional manner; ... Collect data regularly
to determine how well the university's (or department's) course structuring and scheduling
meet the needs of particular student groups; recognize that some needs may be most effectively
met through non-credit offerings and, where warranted, expand these offerings; ... Develop
means to insure that commuting students, part-time working students, and students learning
primarily through distance education have access to instructional resources and support services
and opportunities for interaction with faculty and peers.
Strategic Goal 2: We shall enhance and expand learning opportunities for Pennsylvanians
and others through information and communication technologies.
Technology is changing the face of higher education. It is changing how we know and think
about knowledge, how we teach and learn, how we communicate, and how we do business... the
creation of a new System-level division for information technology. Among the recommendations...
Establish System wide guidelines and standards for ongoing development of the technology and
information infrastructure; continue to build, refine, and expand access to SSHEnet to strengthen
communication within and among System universities; ... Collaborate with other non-profit
organizations within the state--e.g., other colleges and universities, libraries, school districts,
intermediate units, hospitals, and government offices--to expand telecommunications capacity
to schools and communities that lack access to the benefits of the electronic revolution;
... Provide incentives and resources for entrepreneurial exploration of the more dramatic
applications of technology now emerging in the higher education environment.
Strategic Goal 3: We shall strengthen the match between the State System's educational
programs and the needs of students and the state.
Among the recommendations offered to strengthen the match between the State System's educational
programs and the needs of our diverse student population and the state are the following:
... Regularly collect data on state and regional needs and employment markets and make such
data available not only to university planners and career development officers, but also to
academic advisors, faculty, parents, and students; ... Expand and enhance the services and
program offerings at the Dixon University Center and more fully develop the Center's potential
to serve as the catalyst for development of consortia graduate programs, utilizing distance
education technologies and targeting statewide and Capital region needs.
Strategic Goal 4: We shall optimize the management and development of System resources.
... our call for the System to function as an "integrated network" stresses the potential
of resource sharing, partnerships, and other cooperative activities to stretch and increase
available resources. The accountability initiative is an imperative, at least partly, because
future resources may depend on it. ... The following recommendations encourage and reward
the development of new resources and the innovative management of current ones: ... Explore
opportunities for resource sharing among System universities and with neighboring colleges
and universities, including shared appointments of staff or faculty; joint purchases and use
of major equipment; cooperative efforts in data collection and assessment; shared managerial
expertise; and jointly planned faculty and staff development programs.
The decision to implement a shared administrative system - given the repetitive references
noted in the Imperatives for the Future document - may, itself be viewed as being 'imperative'
to the State System's ability to achieve success with Imperatives in general and the Collaboration
and Integration theme in particular. This theme specifically calls for the increased collaboration
on many levels: within universities, among universities, between individual System universities,
or the between the System as a whole and external organizations.
The Systemic Change Initiatives
While adopting Imperatives identified strategic themes for the State System, the Systemic
Change Initiative (SCI) served as the vehicle for identifying specific target areas to focus
attention. Faced with the difficult challenges mentioned above, in July 1999, the Board of
Governors identified twenty-plus issues for a detailed study and review. One of those SCI
issues focused on the study of administrative computing throughout the State System of Higher
Education. The charge was to determine the optimal configuration, resourcing, and organization
of administrative information systems in order to maximize service to customers and users
while minimizing the cost of acquiring, operating, and maintaining these systems, as well
as providing an integrated System-wide decision support system. Below, we review the three
major SCI studies as they relate to the goal of creating a shared administrative system: Administrative
Information Systems, conducted by the GartnerGroup (GG); Non-Faculty Staffing and Complement,
conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers; (PwC); and Opportunities for Increased Efficiency and
Effectiveness Related to Faculty Productivity and Student Learning, conducted by MGT of America
(MGTA).
The GartnerGroup Report
The GartnerGroup, a world-renowned technology consulting firm, conducted an external, independent
study of the current administrative system environments at each State System university and
to make recommendations on how to improve. The GartnerGroup report summarized the diversity
of technologies, administrative process and data elements across the State System. Below,
is a list of technology platforms and administrative applications identified in their report
reflecting the environment/platforms at the time of their study:
| Technology Platforms |
Administrative Application |
| University |
Type |
Name |
Type |
Name |
|
| Bloomsburg |
Mainframe |
Unisys 2200 |
H |
Home Grown |
| California |
Midrange |
Alpha Open VMS |
VC |
SCT-Plus |
| Cheyney |
PC |
Novell/NT |
V |
ABT |
| Clarion |
Midrange |
Alpha Open VMS |
V |
SCT-Plus |
| East Stroudsburg |
Mainframe |
Unisys A11 |
H |
Home Grown |
| Edinboro |
Midrange |
Alpha Open VMS |
V |
SCT-Plus |
| Indiana |
Midrange |
Sun |
VC |
SCT-Banner |
| Kutztown |
Mainframe |
Unisys A11 |
H |
Home Grown |
| Lock Haven |
Midrange |
IBM AIX |
V |
CARS |
| Mansfield |
Midrange |
IBM AIX |
VC |
Datatel |
| Millersville |
Midrange |
HPUX |
V |
SCT-Banner |
| Shippensburg |
Mainframe |
Unisys 2200 |
H |
Home Grown |
| Slippery Rock |
Midrange |
IBM ES9000 |
H, V |
Home & Vendor |
| West Chester |
PC |
Windows NT |
V |
PeopleSoft |
In addition to noting that: "...current processes, data and technology diversity within the
State System environment is a barrier to the direction articulated through the Imperatives,"
the GartnerGroup report formed the following conclusions regarding the observed diversity:
Technology: A wide variety of hardware and application vendors used; administrative
application and technology selections at the universities have been made to meet local needs;
over half of the universities are currently in an administrative application transition state;
the applications and technologies that are common to several campuses are implemented and
configured differently.
Process: Even though the same functions are performed at each campus, there are few
common processes across the State System (some examples include the KLN and payroll); the
administrative processes vary significantly from campus to campus and while there are some
examples of best practices being followed, there is a complete spectrum of efficiency and
capability.
Data: Data collection is primarily viewed as enabling reporting to external agencies
and not as enabling strategic planning efforts of at the State System level; the data collection
process at the universities has become a laborious process of manually extracting data from
multiple sources; the IR [institutional research] department at the university spends significant
time on external statistical reporting to the Office of the Chancellor as compared to internal
strategic analysis.
The final GartnerGroup report provided the specific conclusions that:
- The current process, data, and technology diversity within the State System is a barrier
to distance education, collaboration between universities, and demands for accountability,
noting that such efforts require common standards and processes.
- The current mode of operating 14 separate administrative information systems is not
optimal from a cost-effective perspective.
- There existed a need for solutions to decision support problems and the provision
of enhanced capabilities in human resource/payroll systems.
The GartnerGroup considered four scenarios for cost modeling and analysis:
Baseline Model Schools go through implementations on their own (the same groupings
of schools were used for a fair comparison); schools are free to choose any application package
they want and choose the best fit for the size of the school; and no operational or support
costs are shared. Under this model, administrative processes are performed locally at the
universities under completely unique methods and systems infrastructure (application, hardware
and operations) is local at universities and there are no standards for common technologies.
With accountability requirements, this solution could yield statistical reporting, some centralized
reporting and thereby, provide opportunities for the use of performance metrics.
Common System Model All schools collectively select a single application; first set
of schools go through the implementation with the help of professional vendor services; these
schools then assist the rest of the schools involved in Stage 1 and Stage 2; and no operational
or support costs are shared. This model will potentially result in a unique system outcome
as initial commonalities degrade over time into unique processes. With accountability requirements,
this solution could yield statistical reporting, some centralized reporting and thereby, provide
opportunities for the use of performance metrics.
Shared System/Common Process Model Schools go through implementations together (in
three stages) and all use the same application hosted from a single location; and, support
and operational costs are shared through a common funding mechanism. Under this model, administrative
processes (based in technology) are performed locally at universities but in a common State
System methodology. Systems infrastructure (application, hardware and operations) is shared
and managed from a central location. This model will require IT staffing at both the campus
locations and the central services location.
Shared System/Process Model Schools go through implementations together (in three stages)
and all use the same application hosted from a single location; and, support and operational
costs are shared through a common funding mechanism. In this model, administrative processes
and systems infrastructure are shared and supported through a central location.
Based on their analysis of the four alternative models, the GartnerGroup report reached
the following conclusions:
Implementation costs are lowest for Shared System because of economies of scale (licensing)
and the ability to obtain a 'maximum leverage' of professional services; operating costs are
the same for common and baseline models and considerably lower for shared model after year
seven due to sharing services and operations; the specific cost numbers should not be the
focus of the model analysis -- the relative merits and ranges of cost spectrums is the key;
decisions for organization models, technologies and system configurations should not be driven
solely by cost models or projections; shared system model best supports imperatives and strategic
direction of State System as a whole; shared system model does offer long-term cost savings
opportunities but also requires significant collaboration from the universities in order to
make this model a success.
The GartnerGroup study resulted in two major recommendations for the State System: migrate
to a shared administrative system and establish a central data warehouse. In addition to the
two major recommendations, GG also identified weakness in the existing payroll system and
recommended the upgrading of the payroll system as part of the shared administrative system
project. The GartnerGroup emphasized the importance of migrating to a shared administrative
system rather than a replication of a common system or fourteen independent and potentially
divergent systems. Also, as part of the migration to a shared administrative system, the GartnerGroup
report stressed the importance of reengineering business processes.
In defining their recommendations for a shared administrative system, the GartnerGroup also
identified the need for a "Shared Systems Services Center" that would support both the shared
administrative system and the data warehousing project. They envisioned that the center would
be located in a neutral/central location, independent of any one university. Their recommendation
included the following:
Components: Data repository for the warehouse; application and data servers for human
resources and financial applications; data servers for the student information modules; groupware
servers for collaboration among the various data warehouse and shared system teams; SSHEnet
folded into the Shared Systems Services Center's area of responsibility (given the importance
of the wide area network to the delivery of services).
Staff: Database administrators, application specialists network operations specialists
Benefits: One central service center optimizes costs and management of the shared systems
and databases; pooled resources and central location increases the ability to attract needed
technical skill-sets, with augmentation and knowledge transfer occurring through specialists
to local IT staffs; autonomy from the individual universities promotes uniform service across
the State System.
Challenges: Other considerations (such as available facilities and infrastructure)
may counterbalance physically locating the services center away from any campus; maintaining
the independence of the center's staff from any individual campus - staff should report directly
and only to the Chancellor's Office.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers Report
The PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report evaluated the efficiency of non-faculty staffing and
complement. In addition to the four recommendations from the GartnerGroup, the PwC report
indicated that fully utilizing existing technology to reduce or eliminate manual processes
would provide the infrastructure to minimize the effect of functional silos (both intra- and
inter-university) as well as result in greater efficiency and effectiveness. The shared administrative
system will directly impact the productivity of staff and the effectiveness of university
and System executive management. It is therefore useful to review the relevant findings from
the PwC report and their recommendations.
The following is a summary of PwC findings and recommendations (Selections from the Convergence
Report, Appendix D).
PwC Findings:
First, there are many opportunities for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative
operations.
Based on our site visits - and we have no reason to believe that the three campuses we observed
are outliers within the State System - we observed organizations, processes, and technologies
that, by inhibiting efficiency, drive toward higher levels of staffing. More specifically,
we observed four overall patterns that limit campuses' ability to become leaner:
Functional silos: Like many higher education institutions, the State System campuses
have significant barriers between and within vice presidential areas. This causes duplication
of effort, awkward process flows, and difficulty in the campuses' ability to shift workload
between departments. Duplication of effort takes place when two departments in separate areas
of the organization offer the same services...Functional silos also limit effective communication
between offices, which in turn causes awkward process flows for services that must be provided
by a series of departments. Also, little use of cross training results in large backlogs for
some services, while staff in other areas have downtime...
Manual processing: Many activities at the State System campuses demand significant
manual processing and are extremely labor intensive. In such areas as payroll, financial aid
and development, manual processing could be alleviated through existing information technology;
but in many cases these systems are used to store data rather than to streamline the department's
core functions. As a result, administrative operations at the State System campuses are still,
to a great extent, paper driven...
Limited use of technology: Though the degree of functionality of information systems
differs between campuses, it does not appear that the State System institutions are making
full use of technology that currently exists. At some campuses, a lack of staff training results
in unused automation. At others, computer services staff is called upon to provide substantial
support for the department's operations because staff in functional areas cannot access data
directly from legacy systems. For example, at one school, the overwhelming majority of the
development operations are dependent on nightly runs and daily data requests from computer
services. One development officer estimates spending a minimum of three hours per week working
with computer services to extract the correct information from the system. Making the cultural
shift to automation also poses challenges. We found repeated examples of local software packages
that had been purchased, but had taken a year or more to implement, due in part to resistance
to change and a lack of staff training. We also observed a distrust of technology that caused
some staff to manually double-check calculations and others to keep hard copy files of information
captured on-line. This problem is exacerbated by managers who do not know enough about technology
to guide efficient implementations, thereby leaving many critical functional decisions to
processing staff.
Second, numerous opportunities for administrative improvement exist, but significant change
may require a rethinking of State System roles and responsibilities.
Based on our campus visits, and extrapolating out to the rest of the State System, there are
numerous opportunities for the campuses to improve effectiveness, realize greater efficiency,
and enhance the productivity of management and staff. Some can be made easily ... others will
demand longer periods of time and more significant financial investment. More importantly,
some improvement opportunities will require greater or lesser degrees of collaboration between
universities. There are three general loci of responsibility...
Campus Specific.
Limited Collaboration.
System-Wide.
These recommendations either require a more significant role for the central administration
and/or will achieve greatest results only if campuses participate in a coordinated way. Not
surprisingly, these recommendations - such as the management of donor information or the consideration
of centralized application processing - represent the most difficult type of change and the
greatest shock to the System. They also offer the greatest opportunities for achieving economies
of scale and reducing costs. Because there are numerous integrated information systems being
implemented across the System, we did not recommend a common administrative application, although
other multi-campus systems are finding that a common system offers many advantages. We raise
the issue of collaboration because staffing complement and productivity is not - or at least
should not be - an issue that simply can be propounded by the Board of Governors, driven by
the central administration, and delegated to the campuses. To return to our initial premise,
true improvements in effectiveness, efficiency, and productivity are gained by the concerted
application of resources and solutions across a broad array of processes, technologies, and
policy. And that, in turn, may demand a new model of cooperation within the State System...
PwC Recommendations (included here are those recommendations that are directly related
to the shared system initiative).
Facilities
A.4 Improve facilities technology to smooth process flow, promote better customer communication
and increase management information.
Student Services
B.2 Consolidate the processing of applications.
B.3 Provide access to enabling technologies to smooth workflow in admissions.
B.4 Explore outsourcing of selective financial aid processing.
B.5 Incorporate enabling technologies to provide self-service options to students in financial
aid.
B.6 Further utilize technology to streamline registration processes and improve access to
information.
B.8 Incorporate enabling technologies into the billing process to increase convenience and
streamline payment processing.
B.9 Utilize a bank lockbox for processing of student payments.
Human Resources
C.1 Redesign the payroll process and automate key payroll related processes.
C.4 Enhance technology capabilities to streamline the vacancy-to-hire process.
C.5 Utilize enabling technologies (e.g., web-based, touch-tone) to allow employees to determine
their eligibility for benefits programs, to receive plan information, and to enroll/change
benefits selections.
Institutional Advancement
D.1 Utilize a bank lockbox for gift processing and depositing.
D.2 Utilize information systems to provide "direct access" to all development staff.
D.3 Develop and implement a system-wide approach to managing donor information.
D.6 Optimize the use of technology to provide information and services to alumni.
The MGT-America Report
Finally, In addition to the Gartner Group and PriceWaterhouseCoopers reports, the MGT of America
report on faculty productivity and student made the following recommendations: 1) program
review and prioritization consistent with the mission of each university; 2) establish university
improvement plans with productivity and student outcome goals with timelines; and 3) establish
university and Office of the Chancellor monitoring, assessment and reporting system. Clearly,
the latter category establishes the need for data and information regarding the activities
and outcomes in both a discrete basis through a data warehouse and on a "real-time" basis
through an integrated database structure for transactions data. Furthermore, it identifies
the need for a system that ensures rapid - agile - response to changes in programmatic needs.
The Convergence Report & Integrated Action Plan
In January 2000, the Board of Governors adopted the Convergence Report & Integrated Action
Plan, a plan that merged the findings and recommendations of three major SCI studies--opportunities
for increased efficiency and effectiveness related to faculty productivity and student learning
(MGT of America), non-faculty staffing and complement (PricewaterhouseCoopers), and administrative
information systems (GartnerGroup).
In this section, as previously, we review some highlights of the Convergence Report as it
relates to the shared system initiative. Consider the following excerpt of the Chancellor's
Statement found at the beginning of the report:
"In 1998, I delivered a paper on Pennsylvania's public university system before the Middle
States Commission on Higher Education's "Quality Assurance and Accreditation" conference.
Eight behavioral changes were discussed at that time, all of which will be essential to assure
the successful implementation of Systemic Change improvements. The following behavioral changes
were cited: The System and its constituent universities must change from individual autonomous
campuses to being more interdependent; In serving students and stakeholders, the System must
change from an internal focus to being collaborative and externally focused.; System leaders
must change from a command and control type of management to a more coaching and facilitative
style.; System leaders must change communication styles from those which are more hierarchical
and restricted to those which are more open and extensive; The System and its constituent
universities must change attitudes from "not invented here" to learning from others through
benchmarking and best practices emulation; and, System leadership must change from "quick
fix" approaches and "firefighting" problem solving to conducting root cause analysis and finding
longer-term solutions. Fortunately, some of these behavioral changes already are taking place,
giving reason for great optimism and a renewed sense of excitement about the prospects for
an even stronger and more successful System in the future."
From the report's Background Statement, we read,
"...Faced with these daunting trends and characteristics of change, a special task force composed
of leadership from the Board of Governors, Office of the Chancellor, and university presidents
was convened on November 14, 1997, to develop ideas in five potential strategic response areas
[two of which are directly related to the shared administrative system project] as represented
by the following: 3) Cut costs, improve quality, and restructure how the System educates students
and administers its programs; and, 4) Introduce or expand the use of technology to educate
students and improve administrative functions.
Also from the Executive Summary,
"Opportunities for Improvement" The specific opportunities for improvement cited by
consultant groups also are provided in Appendices D, E, and F. On a more general level and
in keeping with the strategic directions articulated in Imperatives for the Future, five primary
"drivers" for enhanced performance improvement have been identified.
Focus on Learning: First, each System university should undertake mission reviews to
determine programmatic priorities, reduce needless duplication, emphasize program excellence,
and align resources to more appropriately support mission and performance goals. At a minimum,
goals should include timelines and expectations for achieving improvement with respect to
faculty productivity, student learning outcomes, and program quality.
Collaboration and Integration: Second, the System universities would realize additional
efficiencies by working more collaboratively within the System and with others outside the
organization where benefits are mutually derived; Third, and in concert with the second area,
functional silos should be broken down and people organized around processes to assure that
the workforce is more optimally engaged in the work that needs to be done; Fourth, the System
must engage and develop the workforce to take advantage of technology applications, which
can streamline work, increase productivity, and lower costs.
Accountability: Fifth, assessment, accountability, and reward systems must be developed
which reflect the unique characteristics and operating environments of each university.
Imperatives Affirmed
In addition to the System goals, the Imperatives Affirmed document provides a series of actions
that are intended to strengthen the System. Of the nearly 35 action items (in two categories),
many will be directly impacted on by the shared system initiative. Below, a summary listing
of these items is provided.
Category A (funded initiatives):
5. Develop an implementation process and identify resources to establish a Virtual University
(VU) possibly as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation, as a consortium of System universities,
or in another format. This organization would become a portal for the distance education offerings
of System universities and be authorized to award certificates and degrees using the curricula
of System institutions.
7. Redesign System funding allocation systems to better align them with program priorities
and to improve program performance and goal achievement.
9. Commission a study group to identify required human resource competencies for the new program
directions identified in Imperatives Affirmed, particularly its emphases on technology use,
and develop a comprehensive retraining strategy to meet those needs, including targeted recruitment,
training, retraining and professional development for the faculty and staff who will be needed
in the universities during the next five years.
11. In addition to maintaining affirmative action in recruitment efforts, develop implementation
criteria and procedures for a Seamless Admissions program, wherein System universities would
develop agreements to offer guaranteed admission to Pennsylvania high school graduates who
successfully complete designated college preparatory programs, and the PSSA.
Category B (unfunded initiatives):
12. Create and maintain a web-based centralized bank of all positions available within the
System, listing vacancies by title, brief description, contact person, and application deadlines.
17. Involve students and faculty in all majors and at all degree levels across the curriculum
in the use of technology and in research and services, as appropriate.
23. Facilitate access to workplace learning opportunities by establishing a System-wide intern
placement system.
24. Consider adoption of a common academic calendar, effective with the 2002-03 academic year,
to be used for shared academic programs and those delivered through technology.
Goals for the State System of Higher Education for Fiscal Years 2000-2001 to 2002-2003
Goals 1-1 (& 1-6):
From both a detailed vantage point, as presented by the Systemic Change Initiative reports
and the consolidation of those in the broader, high-level perspective identified in the Convergence
Report & Integrated Action Plan, it is clear that central to the State System's new directions
is the use of new, emerging technologies as a primary enabler of change. Reflecting that central
role, while continuing to emphasize the importance of the three primary themes of Imperative
for the Future and updated through Imperatives Affirmed, in July 2001, the Board of Governors
approved Goals for the State System of Higher Education for Fiscal Years 2000-2001 to 2002-2003.
System Goal 1-1 is to begin implementation of the pilot, shared administrative system at five
universities and Dixon University Center with concurrent development of a System Data Warehouse.
In a related goal, System Goal 1-6 is to sustain and expand collaborative purchasing within
the System using web-based technology and other approaches that will allow institutions to
more effectively procure and share resources.
Initially, segregated - two stage, implementation strategy was considered wherein implementation
of a shared system for the five "pilot" universities and the DUC would be completed and evaluated
before consideration of the implementation of the remaining nine universities. During the
course of our evaluation of vendors and an analysis of the costs involved in the project,
it became clear that such a strategy would not be fiscally responsible or present a "meaningful"
technological strategy - if there was any doubt that required "experimental validation, "
the technological feasibility of an integrated, shared system across all fourteen universities
and the Dixon University Center is no longer in doubt. Furthermore, there is clear evidence,
particularly with regards to our selected vendor that the incremental software and hardware
costs associated with additional universities are negligible. Insofar as that the five initial
implementers would be the driving force behind the design of systems (data structures and
processes) that would directly impact all fourteen at some point in the future, the collective
opinion of the System's chief information technology officers was that a more collaborative
effort and transitioning strategy is necessary from the onset of the project. Thus, as will
be evident from the recommendations in this plan, we have specifically moved from a 'pilot'
project to a 'fourteen university shared system' with phased implementation.
Strategic Directions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Before concluding the evaluation of the planning context for a shared administrative system
in light of the State System's strategic planning documents, it is perhaps also important
to reflect on the strategic directions of the Commonwealth with respect to enterprise-wide
information technology solutions and the State System's alignment with those objectives.
In many respects, the strategic planning that has occurred at the State System of Higher Education
has more closely aligned the System with the strategic directions of the Commonwealth. In
the Convergence Report & Integrated Action Plan document, the intentions of the State System's
Board of Governors with respect to this alignment are made clear:
"The format and approach for this report closely parallel that taken by the Improve Management
Performance and Cost Control Task Force, the IMPACCT Commission, which conducted an "opportunity
analysis" of state government and presented findings to the governor, legislature and citizens
of the Commonwealth. The Commission's report, entitled Making Government Make Sense, identified
many opportunities for improving and making government services more efficient. Certainly,
this is no less the case with the Board's Systemic Change Initiative. Beyond this immediate
report, a continuing need exists for performance assessment, new or revised policies, and,
perhaps, even legislative action to help support and sustain true systemic change. In similar
fashion, the ideas in this Convergence Report represent a synthesis of consultant recommendations
presented within a structure that uses Imperatives for the Future as its cornerstone. Building
on this foundation, several key areas will be addressed which mirror those studied by the
Commission, including human resources, information technology, and, to some extent, organizational
structure. Also touched upon will be elements contained in sections of the IMPACCT report
related to planning and performance measurement and implementation strategy. Although this
report does not replicate the state government effort, the State System sees that work as
a benchmark and best practice worthy of emulation. Furthermore, and perhaps more important,
this report demonstrates the Board of Governors' commitment and response to a challenge set
forth in the IMPACCT report which indicated that 'the Commission regrets that our scope did
not permit us to study education, which we consider one of the most pressing issues of the
future. We urge the Governor and Legislature to undertake a thorough investigation of the
state's public, vocational and higher education systems as soon as possible.' As a microcosm
of state government, and as an organization deeply committed to serving the needs of students
and the Commonwealth, the State System hopes to be viewed as a team player in taking self-initiated
action to extend and respond to the original work articulated in Making Government Make Sense
through its overall Systemic Change Initiative, this report, and accompanying integrated action
plan."
The Commonwealth, through the Office of the Governor and with the support of the General Assembly,
has developed and pursed its initiatives in developing enterprise-wide information technology
initiatives. The State System has consistently supported and partnered with the Commonwealth
in delivering on state-wide projects. The State System is very visible in the Commonwealth's
telecommunications services initiatives, being a key player in both the process of procurement
and implementation of the Adelphia/PA-Team efforts to extend the physical telecommunications
and network infrastructure of the state, bring broadband access to the underserved urban and
rural populations of the Commonwealth. In other avenues, the State System has directly supported
Commonwealth initiatives in the areas of economic and workforce development through its universities
and the efforts of the Educational Resources Group, the Office of Corporate Alliances and
other divisions within the Office of the Chancellor. As will become evident in later sections
of the business plan, the Sate System intends to more closely and directly align its information
technology efforts with those of the Commonwealth through technology partnerships that will
provide services consistent with, and complementary to, the ERP efforts of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
Conclusions
In summary, the submission of this business plan is done in concert with the strategic themes
established by the strategic planning efforts that have led from Imperatives for the Future
to the Goals for the State System of Higher Education for Fiscal Years 2000-2001 to 2002-2003
and Imperatives Affirmed, which included a detailed study as part of the Systemic Change Initiative,
prioritized and emphasized as part of the Convergence Report & Integrated Action Plan.
Additionally, it is clear that the business plan and the specific technological investments
it recommends must respond to the aggregate of those plans, studies and derived goals and
objectives - that is, the selected technology must respond to (and be evaluated on the basis
of) the requirements derived from the State System's strategic planning documents.
The requirements derived directly from the System's planning documents identify, generally
and specifically, 'customers,' desirable functionalities and expectations relative to technological
support for higher-level system goals. As the shared system provides the infrastructure that
supports the delivery of services by the administrators, staff and faculty of the universities
(primarily to students), they are the 'direct' customers of the project. That students in
particular, and the Commonwealth in general, form the larger group of intended beneficiaries
of the project is evidenced in many of the items listed.
-
- In July 1999, the Pilot Initiative Task Force (PITF) was established to determine
the validity and effectiveness of the shared administrative systems architecture recommended
by the GartnerGroup and to recommend a system design and migration plan. The members of the
PITF included representatives from the finance and administration and information technology
areas of the five "pilot" universities and the Office of the Chancellor.
The PITF chose to utilize the Request for Qualified Contractors (RFQC) process to select
the most appropriate vendor(s) to provide an integrated administrative system. The RFQC process
is designed to be more flexible than a traditional Request of Procurement (RFP) by encouraging
the issuer and potential vendors to dialogue and share information throughout the process
The RFQC process is a more iterative and interactive process that provides the opportunity
to modify the desired outcomes with information and knowledge gained since the release of
the procurement document.
The RFQC process is divided into multiple phases or "Gates." In Gate One, the State System
identified "Qualified Vendors" through the evaluation of a Statement of Interest addressing
the vendor's proposed products and services and a description of the vendor's vision and ideas
for providing a shared administrative system. The State System initially determined that four
vendors (along with their subcontractors)--Anderson Consulting/PeopleSoft, PricewaterhouseCoopers/PeopleSoft,
Systems & Computer Technologies, Inc. (SCT), and Unisys Corporation/SAP--to be "Qualified
Vendors." Anderson Consulting eventually withdrew from consideration early in the process.
In April 2000, each of the "Qualified Vendors" was provided a full day to demonstrate their
respective software packages to a representative group from each of the fourteen State System
universities. In addition to these demonstrations, each "Qualified Vendor" demonstrated their
software package at each of the initial 5 "pilot" universities. At certain demonstrations,
other State System universities opted to participate in the demonstrations.
In early May 2000, the "Qualified Vendors" submitted a thorough and detailed Initial RFQC
Proposal (Gate 2). The Initial RFQC proposal provided a detailed response to the mandatory
and optional requirements, a Statement of Work explaining how the required and proposed services
would be delivered and maintained, and detailed responses to the Specifications and Needs
Statement (Addendum B of the RFQC) regarding specific functional and technical capabilities
of their proposed software solution. Functional area representatives from the 5 "pilot" universities,
with input from the other universities, prepared the Specifications and Needs Statement.
An important aspect of the RFQC process that proved to be extremely helpful in gaining a more
in-depth understanding of each vendor's proposal was the Negotiation sessions. Representatives
from the Pilot Initiative Task Force spent 2 full days with each vendor discussing their response
to the Initial RFQC. The sessions allowed both the PITF members as well as the vendors to
gain a better understanding of the requirements, expectations, and capabilities of the proposed
design. After the sessions were completed, the RFQC process afforded the PITF the ability
to modify the original set of requirements to better focus on the desired outcome. In order
to be sure that the PITF was asking the most appropriate questions and/or understanding the
responses that were provided, Keane, Inc., an external IT consulting firm was hired to: assist
in the development of specific questions asked of the vendors; participate in the vendor negotiation
sessions; and, make recommendations on how to strengthen the request for services and scope
of the Best and Final RFQC.
Another important step in the selection process was the site visits made to an existing university
client for each software package to see the software in action and to gain a firsthand understanding
from professional colleagues using the software on a daily basis. In August 2000, a representative
functional and information technology group made trips to James Madison University (PeopleSoft),
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (SCT), and the University of Mississippi
(SAP).
Armed with the additional knowledge gained from the Negotiation sessions, software demonstrations,
and the site visits, the PITF, with further assistance from Keane, Inc., revised the original
RFQC and released it as the Best and Final RFQC in late September 2000.
In October 2000, each "Qualified Vendor" submitted their response to the Best and Final RFQC.
Each of the thirteen (13) individual members of the PITF evaluated the responses and scored
the proposals based on pre-established evaluation criteria in the following 4 major categories.
In addition, points were awarded to the vendors based on the cost portion of their proposal.
Some (not all) of the specific criteria used for each category are also provided below.
Functional Capabilities (7 different Functional Groups)
Admissions
Registrars
Accounting/Budget
Financial Aid
Human Resources/Payroll
Bursars (student billing and receivables)
Information Technology
Ability to Support the Vision of the State System of Higher Education
Ability to support the State System as a networked group of entities for economies of scale,
while allowing each university to maintain some level of autonomy;
Ability to transform data-intensive, paper-based processes to self-service, electronic, Web
based processes;
Ability for the individual users to customize their online, portal environment;
Scalable solution that can be implemented at fourteen universities;
Ability to implement an "out-of-the-box" solution (i.e., no modifications to base code) using
common processes for Finance, Human Resources, and Payroll, while allowing for unique processes
for the Student Administration; and
Degree to adherence to open architecture standards.
Implementation Plan
Extent of redesign/reengineering of business processes;
Feasibility of a documented implementation plan that can be used to implement other State
System universities;
A plan that demonstrated an understanding of implementing Payroll at all fourteen State System
universities at one time; and
An effective plan for a multi-campus (multi-site) implementation and an understanding of the
unique complexities of that type of implementation.
Training Plan
A plan that provided sufficient training to all lead functional and information technology
staff;
A complete and effective plan for end-user training; and
Proposal to handle training for business process reengineering, change management, and project
management.
Each of the Functional Groups (7) met independently to review, discuss, and rank each vendor
in order of preference. The Functional Groups ranked specific functional capabilities requested
in the Specifications and Needs Statement provided to the vendors. The Functional Groups provided
their preferred ranking to the PITF in a sealed envelope. Their results were not opened or
otherwise introduced into the process until after the individual PITF members evaluated and
scored their respective sections of the proposal. The average of each Functional Group's ranking
for each functional capability determined the overall ranking of their preferred vendor. The
average of each Functional Group's overall ranking was used to determine the combined vendor
ranking for Functional Capabilities of the software. The SAP software solution received the
highest combined ranking from the functional users.
The members of the PITF evaluated and scored the Vision of the State System, Implementation
Plan, and Training Plan sections/categories. The proposal from Unisys/SAP received the highest
combined total points in each of these 3 sections. Therefore, before considering the cost
portion of the RFQC process, SAP was evaluated on a qualitative basis to be the best overall
solution for the State System of Higher Education by the members of the PITF and the Functional
Groups.
The vendors were asked to submit detailed cost proposals for the following categories: software
licenses, software maintenance, required third-party software (e.g., database, compilers),
hardware, hardware maintenance, implementation services, training, and consultant travel.
The Unisys/SAP cost proposal was not the lowest of the 3 proposals, but was second by $4 million;
therefore they did not receive the most points, but did receive a proportional share of the
total points allotted for the cost section.
On November 16, 2000, the PITF clearly determined that the State System should continue further
negotiations based on the proposal from Unisys/SAP.
-
- The Request for Qualified Contractors (RFQC) described a request for an integrated information
system to be implemented at 5 pilot universities and the Dixon University Center (DUC) initially,
but required that the proposed solution be expandable to accommodate a State System of 14
universities. The cost portion of the RFQC only required the vendors to submit cost proposals
for the pilot universities.
Upon the Pilot Initiative Task Force's recommendation to continue negotiations with Unisys/SAP,
a careful analysis of the Unisys/SAP cost proposal was conducted. The cost analysis groups
cost components into 3 categories: Capital (one-time costs), Operating (recurring annual costs),
and Shared services costs (additional costs associated with implementing a shared system at
a university independent site versus campus-based solutions).
Although the concept of the Shared Administrative System called for 5 universities to participate
in a pilot program to build the integrated system, it was never the intent to require that
the 5 universities and the DUC carry the entirety of implementation costs, annual operating
costs, and the additional Shared services costs; although it was clearly the intent to require
these universities to cover an allocable portion of the costs. The challenge then became how
to determine what an appropriate allocable shared of cost should be.
Since the cost being incurred to implement the Shared Administrative System would ultimately
be shared among all of the State System universities, the most logical approach was to estimate
the (aggregated) total costs of implementing the same SAP R/3 mySAP.com integrated administrative
system for the entire State System and allocate those costs to all 14 universities. With assistance
from Unisys and SAP, a ten-year model was developed to determine the total cost for 3 scenarios:
1) just the 5 pilot universities and the DUC, 2) the 5 pilot universities and the DUC, including
mySAP.com licenses for the remaining 9 universities, and 3) all fourteen universities and
the DUC. The following table summarizes the costs for all three scenarios.
Capital Costs (contracted/projected)
($'s in millions)
10-Year Perspective |
| Description |
Phase I Only
(Scenario 1) |
Phase I + Add'l
License (Scenario 2) |
All 14 Universities
(Scenario 3) |
| Software Licenses |
$2.261 |
$4.402 |
$4.604 |
| Hardware |
2.480 |
2.480 |
3.375 |
| Implementation |
18.562 |
18.562 |
27.986 |
| Backfill Positions |
5.603 |
5.603 |
8.102 |
| Total |
$28.906 |
$31.047 |
$44.067 |
| Average/University * |
$5.536 |
$5.402 |
$3.060 |
| * - Average excludes Payroll system costs of $1.224. |
The above table highlights the reduction in the average cost per university if the State System
proceeds with a model that includes all fourteen universities. The additional software and
hardware cost for the other 9 universities is marginal compared to the initial cost for only
5 universities. Implementation costs for the other 9 universities are estimated at nearly
fifty percent of the initial implementation cost for Phase I. This cost reduction results
from an implementation model that is based on specific knowledge transfer from the Unisys/SAP
implementation team and the State System's implementation team. The intent is for the System's
staff to take on the bulk of the responsibility for implementing additional universities as
they migrate to the new administrative system. A budgetary provision is included to support
the backfill of positions on campuses for personnel that have been released from their normal
campus-based duties to work on the Shared Administrative System in Harrisburg.
When reporting the costs of new administrative systems, universities typically do not include
backfill costs and, in some instances, do not include all or parts of consultant-based or
internal implementation costs. It is also atypical for universities to explicitly report specific
operating costs (which we cover for the shared system project below) as part of the total
costs of an implementation.
For the 14 university model, the average cost per university including only software and hardware
costs is $0.570 million. Including implementation costs, the average cost is $2.569 million.
Comparatively, these costs are very competitive with individual university experiences.
Operating Costs (contracted/projected)
($'s in millions)
10-Year Perspective |
| Description |
Phase I Only
(Scenario 1) |
Phase I + Add'l
License (Scenario 2) |
All 14 Universities
(Scenario 3) |
| Software Maintenance |
$5.214 |
$8.399 |
$9.232 |
| Hardware Maintenance |
3.322 |
3.322 |
3.838 |
| Renewal & Replacement |
4.464 |
4.464 |
5.359 |
| Total |
$13.000 |
$16.185 |
$18.429 |
| Average/University * |
$2.584 |
$2.151 |
$1.311 |
| * - Average excludes Payroll system costs of $0.080. |
As is the case with the Capital costs described above, the average cost per university for
software and hardware maintenance decreases greatly with all universities participating. The
renewal and replacement component is a reserve that will be maintained to support the life-cycle
replacement of the hardware component.
Shared Services Costs (contracted/projected)
($'s in millions)
10-Year Perspective |
| Description |
Phase I Only
(Scenario 1) |
Phase I + Add'l
License (Scenario 2) |
All 14 Universities
(Scenario 3) |
Shared Services Center
(Administrative System Share only) |
$20.376 |
$20.376 |
$20.376 |
| Hardware Outsourcing |
6.567 |
6.567 |
7.804 |
| Total |
$26.943 |
$26.943 |
$28.180 |
| Average/University |
$5.389 |
$5.389 |
$2.013 |
The Shared services cost include the Shared Administrative System's portion of shared services
costs. These costs are over-and-above costs that individual universities would have incurred
if they purchased and implemented similar ERP systems on their own campuses. The shared services
costs are predominantly staff salaries. These costs will be incurred at the same time that
participating universities will need to continue to support their legacy systems until they
fully migrate to the new system. The State System intends to consolidate all hardware for
shared services at a single location and outsource the systems operations of the hardware
to the Unisys Consolidated Data Center. Once again, the above table clearly indicates that
the average cost per university is much lower in a 14 model implementation.
Cost Summary (contracted/projected)
($'s in millions)
10-Year Perspective |
| Description |
Phase I Only
(Scenario 1) |
Phase I + Add'l
License (Scenario 2) |
All 14 Universities
(Scenario 3) |
| Capital |
$28.906 |
$31.047 |
$44.067 |
| Operating |
13.000 |
16.185 |
18.429 |
| Shared Services |
26.943 |
26.943 |
28.180 |
| Total |
$68.849 |
$74.175 |
$90.676 |
| Average/University * |
$13.509 |
$12.942 |
$6.384 |
| * - Average excludes Payroll system costs of $1.304. |
A summary of the cost components reflects the average cost per university drops to $6.384
million from $13.509 million when implementing fourteen universities instead of just 5 universities;
a difference of $7.125 million per university.
Cost Avoidance Issues
An issue of much debate and discussion has been the GartnerGroup's statement in their report
that the State System of Higher Education could save, or more appropriately avoid an estimated
$29 million over a ten-year period when comparing the capital and operating cost of a shared
system implementation versus individual campus-based implementations. In an effort to validate
GartnerGroup's assessment of possible cost avoidance, we present a comparison of an independent
14 university implementation to a shared implementation using the contracted/projected costs
shown above. It is important to note the assumptions underlying the cost avoidance analysis:
1) A comparison of a shared system versus 14 independent but identical implementations.
2) Equivalent functionality/product specification (SAP)
3) All universities implement a new common (rather than shared) system within ten years.
Estimated Cost Avoidance
($'s in millions)
10-Year Perspective |
| Description |
Independent
Implementation
Costs |
Shared
Implementation
Costs |
Cost
Reduction |
| Capital |
$28.906 |
$44.067 |
|
| Operating |
13.000 |
18.429 |
|
| Total |
$41.906* |
$62.496 |
|
| Average Cost/University |
$8.381** |
$4.464 |
$3.917 |
| Gross Costs |
$117.334 |
$62.496 |
$54.838 |
| Less: Shared Services Costs |
|
|
$28.180 |
| Net Costs Avoided |
|
|
$26.658 |
| *-estimated 5 university total, **-5 university average cost/university. |
Using the Capital and Operating costs from Scenario 1 above (pilot universities only), the
total cost of $41.906 million was divided by 5 to determine that an average cost/university,
yielding an average cost of $8.381 million per university if an equivalent software package
were implemented independently on each campus. Likewise, the total costs for Scenario 3 above
(an all 14 university implementation) of $62.496 million was divided by 14 to determine that
the average cost per university when participating in a shared implementation resulting in
a total of $4.464 million per university. Comparing the gross costs for a fourteen-campus
implementation under each scenario resulted in a gross cost avoidance of $54.838 million or
$3.917 million per university. The Shared services costs of $28.180 are then subtracted from
the gross cost avoidance, resulting in a net cost avoided amount of $26.658 million.
This net cost avoidance amount should not be confused with the potential cost savings that
will result from streamlining business processes, providing users with direct access to pertinent
information, and improving productivity by empowering the end-users, to name just a few possibilities.
-
-
-
Application, HR/Payroll, Data Warehouse Shared Services, Transition Plan
In agreement with the outcome of the procurement process, the implementation of the proposal
presented by Unisys/SAP is recommended. The details of the proposal are included in the materials
collected as part of the procurement and negotiations process. These items will be available
for review once final negotiations have been completed. An overview of the selected application
characteristics is provided below.
The Selected Application Characteristics
The Shared Administrative System will be created using SAP's R/3, mySAP.com administrative
software package. The shared administrative system will initially include administrative functionality
for finance, human resources, payroll, and student administration. The following table summarizes
some of the major functional capabilities that will be provided through the mySAP.com shared
administrative system.
Functional Capabilities
mySAP.com |
| Finance |
Human Resources |
Payroll |
Student |
| Budgetary Control |
Retirement |
Position Control |
Admissions Process |
| General Ledger |
Compensation Mgt. |
Earnings |
Student Registration |
| Accounts Receivable |
Classification |
Taxes |
Grade Processing |
| Purchasing |
Performance Mgt. |
Benefits |
Academic Progress |
| Accounts Payable |
Social Equity |
Deductions |
Student Records |
| Receiving |
Labor Relations |
Payment Outputs |
Financial Aid |
| Storeroom |
Training & Develop. |
Payroll Accounting |
Student Billing |
| Fixed Assets |
Recruitment |
Retroactive Pay |
Academic Structure |
| Grants Accounting |
Employee Self-Service |
Time & Attendance |
Student Self-Service |
|
|
|
Social Equity |
In addition to the functional support and system capabilities listed in previous table, State
System universities will have the option to take advantage of an integrated software solution
for Alumni and Development, Housing, and Facilities Work Orders.
The Shared Administrative System will be a web-based, interactive system that utilizes workflow
to streamline business processes. A major goal is to provide customers direct access to required
information on a 24/7/365 basis in order for them to manage their information as they see
fit. It is important to note that this solution will provide an integrated database across
both functional areas (i.e.; finance, HR, payroll, students, alumni, etc.) within a university
and across all fourteen universities. Where common processes are desirable, they are readily
implemented. More useful to the System and the universities is the inherent capability of
the SAP R/3, mySAP.com of supporting multiple, entity (university) specific processes on an
integrated database, thus providing for individual university policy and process rules without
causing divergent data structures and definitions.
Human Resources and Payroll
In addition to the shared administrative system initiative, the need for the replacement of
the existing shared payroll system and system-wide implementation of a human resources application
was identified as part of the systemic change review. Integrated implementation of the human
resource and payroll systems was also evaluated in reviewing the products of vendors participating
in the shared system RFQC. On the strength of the Unisys/SAP proposals with regards to human
resources and payroll offerings as well as the attractive (low) cost of their implementation
as part of the broader initiative, it is recommended here that the SAP solutions be implemented
as a shared system across all fourteen universities early in the implementation process.
Data Warehouse
The initial recommendations of the GartnerGroup regarding the development of a data repository
were accepted and expanded upon in defining the System goal of creating a System-wide data
warehouse. We recommend that this effort be implemented in two (concurrent) tracks over the
course of the transitioning of all fourteen universities to the shared system. The two-track
recommendation is a response to both short-term needs and the long-term opportunities presented
by the creation of an integrated database in the implementation of the shared system.
The short-term objective, identified as Track I, includes the consolidation of all data collected
currently (with some planned expansion) in digital form. The resulting data repository will
form the basis for reporting and analysis System-wide and at the individual universities.
The work of a related group, the Data Interchange Task Force, has led to the selection of
data-mining and reporting tools that would provide tools for manipulation, ad-hoc querying,
reporting and analysis utilizing the data repository. It is expected that Track I would be
completed by August, 2001.
Track II effectively creates a data warehouse (as differentiated from a data repository) by
incorporating granular (or, atomic) level transactions data drawn from the shared system's
integrated database. Data relative to each university will be included once implementation
for the university has been completed and cut-over to the new system has occurred. Thus, Track
II will naturally be 'finalized' once all fourteen universities have transitioned their data
and processes to the shared system.
All development efforts relative to reporting, querying and analysis - and, thereby, all costs
of data-mining applications and development - will persist from Track I to Track II, ensuring
that the value-added of all investments is retained. Once Track II is completed, end-users
will note two differences: 1) and increase in the quantity, depth and consistency of data;
and 2) the availability of enhanced business intelligence tools available through the mySAP
product. A chart depicting the recommendations regarding the Data Warehouse is provided below.
Also provided is an organizational chart depicting the specific staffing, reporting and collaborative
relationships for the area.
Schematic Representation of Track I and Track II Development of Data Warehouse

Draft Organizational Layout Data Warehouse

Shared Services Center
It is also recommended that a shared services center be created that would serve to consolidate
the support services required for the shared administrative system, the payroll/HRIS systems
and the data warehouse. The recommendation is discussed in further detail in a later part
of this section.
Transition Plan
Furthermore, we recommend an implementation plan that transitions, over a five to seven year
period, all fourteen universities to the shared system. A detailed university administrative
system convergence plan will be developed in detail in consultation with Unisys/SAP and all
fourteen universities immediately after the approval of the business plan and the contract
award. The initial phasing in of the five pilot' universities and the Dixon University Center
is expected to proceed as identified in earlier planning documents although some accommodation
is needed for universities that have expressed interest in the project.
A recommended transition of the remaining nine universities is also developed as part of the
initial transitioning plan. Of the nine remaining universities, two have expressed interest
in participating early on in implementation process. Others have expressed interest in implementing
sub-set components of the shared system to augment their existing ERP efforts. In anticipation
of a system-wide implementation, all universities have expressed interest in participating
in the product development process - particularly in the determination of database structures
and common processes.
Given the varying levels of interest expressed by universities and the often unpredictable
practical realities of the implementation experience, it should be understood that the transition
plan identified below is no more - and no less - than a formal point of departure. While we
assume that transitioning will proceed generally within the time parameters identified, we
fully expect that changes to the plan will occur over time.

-
- This section provides an overview of the ten-year uses and sources of funds for the shared
administrative systems project. Thus, many of the costs detailed below are not incurred (or
specifically obligated) at the initiation of the project -- but are totals over a ten-year
period. It should be noted that noted that the costs include components that internal operating
costs as well as those that are contractually obligated. In addition to specific System-level
operating costs (primarily personnel), the internal costs are inclusive of estimated costs
for contingency, backfill and renewal and replacement of capital equipment. Such costs are
typically not reported as part of individual university reporting of the costs of ERP implementations.
Capital Costs
The capital costs section of the project budget totals $49.364 million. This total includes
$4.604 million for software license fees, $3.375 million for hardware, $27.986 million for
implementation consulting services (including training and consultant travel costs), $8.102
to support the backfill of campus-based and Dixon University Center (DUC)-based positions
temporarily assigned to support the Shared Administrative System project, and an estimated
$5.297 million for contingency funds to cover unexpected costs.
Of the total Capital costs outlined above, the initial contractual obligation would be $23.303
million, including; $2.261 million for software, $2.480 million for hardware, and $18.562
million for implementation consulting service to support the implementation at the initial
5 universities and the DUC. The project budget estimates that it will cost an additional $12.661
million to implement the ERP solution at the remaining 9 universities.
Important to the determination of the implementation consulting service costs for the additional
9 universities is the expectation that knowledge transfer will occur during the initial implementation
phase. It is expected that the vendor will work closely with the State System implementation
team during all phases of the implementation process with the intent of preparing (i.e., coaching)
the State System team to be able to take on the bulk of the future implementation responsibilities
for the additional 9 universities. With this understanding in mind, the project budget estimates
only $9.424 million, or nearly fifty percent of the initial implementation consulting costs
for the additional 9 universities.
The hardware architectural design will not only support the initial phase universities (5
universities plus the DUC, but a fourteen university Shared Administrative System. It is estimated
that an additional 2 production application servers will need to be added to the mix of hardware
in order to support the additional universities. For this purpose, $0.895 million has been
estimated for the additional servers. It is likely that it will be necessary to increase the
number processes, memory, and disk storage space to the initial hardware as well, but to what
extent is not known at this time. A part of the above-mentioned contingency budget would be
used for these items. The hardware architecture will be based predominantly on Sun Microsystems
hardware platform, utilizing their Solaris operation system.
Operating Costs
The operating costs represent a ten-year estimate of annual software and hardware maintenance
fees and a renewal and replacement (R&R) reserve for future life-cycle replacement of hardware
of $18.429 million. Over the first ten-years of the project, software maintenance fees for
all software products are estimated to be $9.232 million. Hardware maintenance fees for the
same period total $3.838 million. The R&R reserve is budgeted at $5.359 million.
Shared Services Costs
The shared services costs represent costs that will be incurred to support the State System's
implementation team and the outsourcing of the hardware. A ten-year estimate for the total
Shared services costs is $28.180 million. The Shared Administrative System's portion of the
Shared IT Services Center is $20.376 million ($16.573 million for personnel, $2.933 million
for operating expenses, and $0.870 million for capital expenses). In addition, $7.804 million
is allocated for outsourcing services of the Shared Administrative System's hardware and its
daily operational support.
Total Cost
In summary, the total ten-year project budget including the one-time Capital costs, ten-year's
worth of annual Operating costs, ten-year's of annual Shared services costs and contingency
fund of $5.297 million produce an estimated total of $95.973 million. This estimated total
costs do not include any financing costs (i.e., interest, issuance costs).
Sources of Funds
An equally important aspect to the Project Budget/Financial Plan is identifying funding sources
to cover the total project costs. This financial plan includes funding from each of the State
System universities, Dixon University Center, and eventually the Educational Resource Group
(ERG), prior year special appropriations, and from either Educational & General budget or
additional appropriations from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
As is the case with most projects of this size and scope, a significant portion of the Capital
costs occur within the first several years. For instance, of the $49.364 million total projected
Capital costs, $41.546 million, or 84.2 percent will occur in the first 4 years. Since university
participation is staggered unevenly over the ten-year period, cash flow from the participating
universities is not sufficient to cover anticipated cash outlays. Therefore, the State System
will incur additional Transition/Financing costs to alleviate cash flow problems. The total
Transition/Financing costs will be determined as we proceed through the life of the project
but are estimated on the following table. The following table compares the impact of receiving
additional Commonwealth of Pennsylvania state appropriation support versus funding from the
Educational and General appropriations.
| Ten-Year Projection of Expenses and Revenues |
| Categories |
With Additional $40M
from Commonwealth |
Without Additional
$40M from
Commonwealth |
| Expenses: |
|
|
| Capital |
$49.364 |
$49.364 |
| Operating |
18.429 |
18.429 |
| Shared services |
28.180 |
28.180 |
| Interest |
0.616 |
4.432 |
| Total |
$96.589 |
$100.405 |
| Revenues: |
|
|
| Appropriation on hand |
$5.000 |
$5.000 |
| Additional Appropriations |
40.000 |
- |
| University Charges |
56.284 |
56.284 |
| E&G Budget, Other |
- |
40.000 |
| Total |
$101.284 |
$101.284 |
| Additional E&G Budget/Year |
|
$5.000 |
The financial plan allocates the total Capital and Operating costs to each of the State System
universities and DUC based on a percentage of total faculty, staff, and student headcount.
On a cash flow basis, capital costs are to be paid-out over a seven-year period (three years
for Payroll). Universities are not expected to begin payment until one year after the university
begins implementation to provide relief from the specific transition costs of running two
systems simultaneously. Therefore, universities that begin implementation after year three
(or, that begin payments after year four) will have a remaining balance beyond year ten.
During the ten-year period, the State System universities will be expected to fund $56.284
million in university-specific project costs. In the prior two fiscal years, the Board of
Governors and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provided a combined $5.000 million in special
appropriations in support of this effort. The ten-year total of sources (does not include
university based funding beyond year ten) is $61.284 million. The ten-year total costs (excluding
financing costs) is $95.957 million. After netting the ten-year combined sources against the
ten-year total costs, there is a shortfall of $34.689 million. It will be necessary for the
Board of Governors to seek additional state appropriations from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
to at least cover the $34.689 million shortfall and possibly support some university expenses,
or allocate approximately $5 million annually to the newly created consortium that will manage
the Shared Administrative System. If the latter alternative is utilized, allocation will need
to be over and above the State System's normal operating requirements and funded from other
revenue sources.
Total annual costs & university based sources is depicted below, identifying the need for
additional funding from E&G budget or through additional line-item appropriations.
-
- In evaluating the project components, a cost component was identified that includes all
new, system level operating infrastructure necessary to the implementation of the shared administrative
system and the data warehouse. Simply put, the project will require the creation of a shared
services center that will provide a facility staffed and resourced to provide support for:
the initial implementation for first-phase universities; the transitioning of the remaining
universities; and on-going long-term support services for the shared system once fully operational.
Additionally, the data warehousing initiative would be enhanced by a close (long-term) proximity
to the work of the universities in developing the shared administrative system. Given the
level of investment and long-term need for such centralized shared services, it would be to
our benefit to leverage this opportunity to create a shared IT services center.
We therefore recommend the creation of a Shared IT Services Center (SSC) that would provide
the State System with the opportunity to offer integrated IT management and service to several
complementary functional areas. The same principles that provide a basis for the State System
universities to share and consolidate their administrative information systems to improve
cost effectiveness can be applied to the sharing and consolidation of other information technology-related
services that are currently supported on a System-wide basis. As such, the shared services
center can be viewed as a System-wide utility, providing services to all 14 universities,
the Educational Resources Group and the Dixon University Center.
The consolidated management and co-location of the support resources for the shared administrative
system, the data warehouse, the Keystone Library Network (technical services), the Center
for Distance Education and other networked teaching efforts (technical services), and the
SSHEnet will not only assure that operational scale of economies can be captured, but will
also promote organizational effectiveness in meeting the service needs of the universities.
A non-limiting scope for the Shared IT Service Center recognizes that interrelationships and
interdependencies among the universities relative to IT support services will naturally evolve
over time as needs and technological tools change. From a forward-looking perspective, the
potential for the provision of other IT services in the future should be ensured - to the
extent that such consolidation are viewed by all as a means to serve the needs of the universities
and the system and mitigate against inefficiencies, costs escalation, unnecessary duplication
of effort, confused jurisdictional overlap, and diffused accountability for performance. It
should be noted that the support for shared services is intended to support the primary mission
of the System and its universities - thus, it must, as all other such utilities, be responsive
to the needs and requirements of larger academic and business processes.
The Shared IT Services Center (SSC) would provide high-quality, responsive service to the
fourteen State System universities, their 4 branch campuses and 4 extension sites, the Educational
Resources Group (ERG), and the Dixon University Center (DUC) collectively using an enterprise-wide,
integrated approach to supporting the IT-utility components. A potential, initial conceptual
structure for the SSC is depicted below. Though not depicted, each of the elements of the
SSC would have direct linkages to those offices and user constituencies that have responsibility
for specific services, or, an advisory role in the delivery of services.

Facility Plan
As part of the implementation of the SSC, it is intended that space be leased in Harrisburg
with sufficient space to house up to twenty-five full-time System IT professionals, up to
twenty (short-term) staff from the various university campuses and approximately twenty consultants.
That is, at this new center will be housed all those who would be responsible for applications
development, database administration, web development, etc. to support the Shared Administrative
Systems, the Data Warehouse, Payroll and Human Resource Systems, technical support for SSHEnet,
the KLN, the CDE/ERG and other potential shared services.
Staffing and Human Resource Management
It is also recommended that a review of compensation and classification be conducted relative
to both IT and (affected) functional area positions. This review may forward further recommendations
once completed.
-
- It is recommended that a consortium be created with a governance body to oversee the operational
activities related to System-wide information technology initiatives.
It is further recommended that the governing executive board of the consortium include the
following members: four university Presidents s