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:

• Overview
  • Introduction
  • The Strategic Basis for Change
  • Overview of the Procurement/Vendor Selection Process
  • Alternative Cost Models for Implementation
• Recommendations
  • Broad Recommendations
  • Project Budget and Financial Plan for a 14 University Model
  • Consolidated IT Services Center
  • Establishment of a Consortium
• Impact, Benefits and Assessment
• Issues, Concerns and Risks

---

• Overview

  • Section 1.1: Introduction

    • 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.
      
      

  • Section 1.2: The Strategic Basis for Change

    • 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:
      1. 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.
      2. The current mode of operating 14 separate administrative information systems is not optimal from a cost-effective perspective.
      3. 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.
      
      

  • Section 1.3: Overview of the Procurement/ Vendor Selection Process

    • 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.
      
      

  • Section 1.4: Alternative Cost Models for Implementation

    • 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.
      
      

• Recommendations

  • Section 2.1: Broad Recommendations

    • 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.
      
      
      
      

  • Section 2.2: Project Budget and Financial Plan for a 14 University Model

    • 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.
      
      

  • Section 2.3: Consolidated IT Services Center

    • 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.
      
      

  • Section 2.4: Establishment of a Consortium

    • 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