DRAFT MINUTES OF THE

Back to Minutes and Agendas

University of California, Berkeley

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE E-BERKELEY STEERING COMMITTEE

Meeting of May 14, 2003
Chancellor’s Conference Room, California Hall

Members present: EVC and Provost Paul Gray, Chair, AVC Greg Brown, VC Beth Burnside, Director Jon Conhaim, Director Victor Edmonds for VP Christina Maslach, Web Services Manager Mara Hancock for Professor Philip Stark, Divisional Computer Manager Tim Heidinger for VC Genaro Padilla, Director Phyllis Hoffman, VC Jim Hyatt, Assoc. Dean George Johnson, Student Representative Charis Kaskiris, Director Helen Kelly, AVC Jack McCredie, Chief Technology Officer Tessa Michaels, VC Horace Mitchell, AVC David Moers, Director Ralph Moon, Director Barbara Morgan, Professor Arthur Ogus for Professor Ken Goldberg, Assoc. Dean Jeff Reimer for Dean Mary Ann Mason, and AVC George Strait.

Also attending: Kelly Haberer, Administrative Systems; David Scronce, Chansonette Buck and Kimberly Miller, Human Resources; and Shelton Waggoner, Central Computing Services.

1. Welcome and Approval of Minutes from March 24, 2003, Meeting

Minutes were approved with one correction.

2. Announcements

· New Director of Central Computing Services

Jack McCredie introduced the new Director of CCS, Shelton Waggoner, who joined IST from Lucent in April, replacing Martha Fateman. Shel said he was happy to be at UC, and thanked those who had sent emails welcoming him.

· Other

Jack gave an update on the RFP for a new campus email system to replace UCLink. Four vendors have been selected from those who responded to the RFP; each will give an all-day presentation next week. A decision will be made in June, and implementation of the new system will take place over the summer.

Jack also called for congratulations to Professor Jeff Reimer for receiving a Distinguished Teaching Award.

3. Report on E-Berkeley Symposium

Paul Gray congratulated Jon Conhaim on managing the successful e-Berkeley Symposium, “Rethinking Large Enrollment Courses New Ideas for Teaching and Learning.” Jon reported that the Symposium, co-sponsored by the e-Berkeley Program Office, the Academic Senate, the Division of Undergraduate Education, and the Council of Academic Partners, was attended by 120 participants, including faculty, GSIs, staff, and student representatives, with approximately 50% being faculty. A copy of the Symposium agenda was included in the meeting packet. Jon summarized the program for the Steering Committee, highlighting the introductory remarks by Paul Gray and Christina Maslach and the morning breakout sessions on key issues for large enrollment courses:

· Putting Teaching First: Reducing Administrative Drudgery

· Enhancing the Culture of Teaching

· Using New Course Models to Build Learning Communities

· Evaluating Student Learning: How Do We Know What Works?

The Symposium included demonstrations and displays of innovative teaching and learning techniques, presented by the e-Berkeley Program, Educational Technology Services, and several academic departments. The afternoon plenary session included a “Case Study of a Large Enrollment Course” to help participants distill issues raised in the morning breakout sessions, and the program concluded with each small working group presenting their highest priority recommendations to improve teaching and learning in large enrollment courses. These recommendations are being analyzed by the e-Berkeley Program Office, the Division of Undergraduate Education, and the Council of Academic Partners. Jon will report the results of the analysis and recommendations for next steps to the Steering Committee.

Jon thanked all who contributed to the Symposium’s success, and noted that a video is being prepared of the morning and afternoon sessions; it will be available on the e-Berkeley website at http://eberkeley.berkeley.edu. Jon also distributed copies of the new e-Berkeley brochure, which was handed out at the Symposium, to the Steering Committee.

Arthur Ogus, representing the Academic Senate Committee on Computing and Communications (COMP), asked that details on the results of the breakout sessions (particularly on administrative burden relief for faculty) be forwarded to COMP. Jon agreed to provide summaries of session results to the participants, the Steering Committee and COMP.

Paul Gray said that the meeting was remarkable, with a good turnout, a lot of energy, and a valuable exchange of ideas. Phyllis Hoffman suggested that the Symposium recommendations and some demos be presented at the Deans and Chairs Fall Retreat.

4. Review of EBITF Funding Recommendations for e-Berkeley Innovative Projects

Paul Gray prefaced this topic by saying that the Governor’s office had released further bad news today concerning the State budget. Although the impact on UC is unknown, the campus will find ways to support some innovative projects.

Jim Hyatt reported that 34 proposals were submitted for this second year of the “innovative projects” program. These went through a selection process enhanced by online procedures, and resulted in recommendations forwarded by EBITF. Helen Kelly described last year’s lengthy process; it was too burdensome, with too many committees voting. This year the proposals were posted on a website, and after comments were received from ASSCS and ETC, EBITF members voted on the projects, using software developed by Undergraduate Affairs. The Steering Committee was now being asked to review and endorse the EBITF recommendations. Helen noted that one project, Berkeley Academic Business Language, had been removed from the list since Jim Hyatt elected to finance this highly-ranked project with Data Integration Project funds, so that actually six proposals are being considered.

Jon Conhaim walked through the EBITF recommendation report, which was accompanied by a spreadsheet showing all 34 submissions with the seven top projects listed on page one:

· Document Engineering: Forms & Workflow (SIMS and IST-SIS)

· Berkeley Academic Business Language (SIMS and Lawrence Hall of Science; alternate funding)

· Cost Sharing Tracking System (Budget & Finance)

· Content Management System (Library, BAS, and IST-SIS)

· Course Approval System (Academic Senate, SIMS, and IST-SIS)

· Pervasive Computing Initiative (Haas)

· Online Gradebook (Educational Technology Services)

With regard to activities listed on the spreadsheet as jointly sponsored by IST-SIS and SIMS, Jack McCredie explained that over the past year Bob Glushko has been teaching as an adjunct professor at SIMS, and getting graduate students involved in actual projects in partnership with IST.

Paul Gray asked whether the Course Approval System project was the same as the large budget request submitted by the Academic Senate; Helen replied that the innovative project on the list was a much smaller R&D project. Jon Conhaim said the larger project would cost about $180,000; he is working with the Senate to find funding to replace the current paper-based system of processing course approvals.

David Moers asked whether additional funds would be requested next year for the projects started this year, and Jon replied that in some cases this would be true; however, additional funding would not necessarily be requested through the e-Berkeley process. He also remarked that, as noted in the recommendation report, the total cost for the six proposals is $110,519. The amount available in the e-Berkeley Innovation Fund is $100,000, leaving a shortfall of $10,519 to be funded by the e-Berkeley Program Office.

George Johnson remarked that the recommended projects were administrative, not “student-centric,” and he thinks it is important that students see that e-Berkeley supports their needs. The student representative, Charis Kaskiris, replied that it would be nice to see some projects such as course scheduling on the list, but that the recommended projects are necessary for support of future student services applications. Paul Gray asked about the Telebears Scheduling project (#9 on the spreadsheet). Jack McCredie explained that students can’t do “what if” scheduling with Telebears, and students in several departments have written scheduling programs to help them plan their schedules. However, these student projects have been unable to use real student data, due to policies governing use of such data. This project would allow them to work with SIS to build a product that could fill a real need.

Paul Gray said he thinks that several projects listed below the top seven look very good, and that perhaps they will get done another way. Jack McCredie noted that tracking projects through the e-Berkeley Program Office should provide more visibility and increase the chances of matching partners with similar needs.

Beth Burnside asked about the Conference Software project (#18 on the list). Jack responded that we have had usable software from UCSD for two or three years but modest funds are needed to implement it at Berkeley for campuswide use; Beth suggested asking the colleges for funds. Tim Heidinger suggested that we recognize and publicize outstanding “e-Berkeley” work in addition to projects that go through the budget process, to promote standards and best practices. George Strait asked about the Student Portal (#17 on the list) and questioned whether integration into a student portal is being considered for all student-related projects. Jack McCredie noted that the Student Portal will be a very expensive project. IST has a pilot project to evaluate uPortal software from a consortium of universities. Tessa Michaels said that she and Jon Conhaim would present a road map for portal projects in June.

Paul Gray proposed that the proposals be approved as presented, and that the Telebears project receive special attention from Jack McCredie and himself to figure out how to make it happen. The Steering Committee agreed to adopt the six recommendations from EBITF.

5. Berkeley Financial System (BFS) Upgrade Issues

Greg Brown gave some background on the PeopleSoft BFS system (the campus accounts payable, purchasing, general ledger and budget system). A/P and purchasing modules were installed in 1999, followed by the GL in 2000. BFS uses a client-server based architecture, the best system any vendor offered at the time. A lot of customizations to the PeopleSoft products were made to support Mac users on campus and to accommodate “the Berkeley way.”

BFS was upgraded successfully in 2000; no other major upgrades have been made. Since that time web-based HRMS has been implemented, and it feels very different from the older BFS interface. In addition, data integration issues have arisen between the two systems. Last spring PeopleSoft released their web version of the financial system, but we decided to wait for other users to implement it, since Berkeley has had some difficult experiences with new PeopleSoft products. In December 2002, the BFS Technical Functional Team (VC Horace Mitchell, VC Jim Hyatt, AVC Jack McCredie) asked Greg to chair a working group to investigate what would be involved in upgrading BFS to the web-based version.

Greg summarized the risks of not upgrading.

1. This spring, PeopleSoft stopped supporting the version of the system we run. This is not the most serious risk we face, since we’ve found most of the bugs and most customizations have been made.

2. Deferring the upgrade will lead to a more complicated upgrade path, since it would take several iterations to get to the desired result.

3. The ongoing cost of supporting the Citrix environment is a downside.

4. We lack flexibility in security configurations because workflow couldn’t be implemented properly and a customization was made that ended up creating an “artificial child of the organizational tree” called the “processing unit.”

5. “Procurement” is a Berkeley homegrown customization that is very hard to maintain.

6. We can’t take advantage of new functions and tools, and staff are frustrated.

7. Training and workload issues for staff need to be dealt with.

Greg’s committee has been working since early December on analyzing these risks and problems, but the timing couldn’t be worse, because of our financial situation.

The advantages of upgrading are:

1. Browser-based capabilities are consistent with e-Berkeley, with the HRMS architecture, and with the move to a comprehensive business portal.

2. Workflow has improved in the new software. The reason the “processing unit” customization was put in place was so that the right people would be approving transactions, but it now seems that most of these customizations could be avoided.

3. More flexibility with security considerations would be possible.

4. The purchasing module is well done and using it would help streamline processes.

5. We could have greater flexibility and a more standard Chart of Accounts.

The business process and architecture changes comprise the largest expense, since the PeopleSoft software is in place and our license covers the new version. The recommendations from all quarters are to consider the upgrade actively, and a technical team visited PeopleSoft recently to discuss the architectural and conversion issues. Greg said that if the decision were made to go forward, it would take 12 15 months to do the upgrade because so many business processes need to be reviewed and there are significant training challenges.

If funds were available, Greg would recommend starting the process in September 2003 with implementation in January 2005, but he doesn’t think this is possible due to the budget situation. His group is gathering cost information, to find the lowest possible dollar figure that would allow a successful outcome. A question was raised as to how long the upgrade would be viable; Greg responded that this upgrade appears to be a major architecture change, but it will also be important to keep up with future upgrades. Tessa Michaels added that aging of all components of the financial system should be considered (not just PeopleSoft products) and upgrades need to be part of the ongoing plan. Jack McCredie noted that the aging financial system is preventing us from moving to the next level of the underlying DB2 database system.

Comments from the Steering Committee were supportive; Beth Burnside noted that changing to the web-based system would make things easier. Greg said he would make recommendations soon, after discussion with his committee. He also noted that other organizations have offered to let UCB experiment with PeopleSoft 8 using their systems. Paul Gray thanked Greg for his report, and said he hoped the budget situation would improve sufficiently to meet this challenge.

6. Update on HRMS and Related Initiatives

David Scronce introduced the individuals presenting the update: Kelly Haberer, Director of IST Administrative Systems Department; Kimberly Miller, Employment Manager, Human Resources; and Chansonette Buck, Senior Analyst, Human Resources. David referred to the spreadsheet in the meeting packet titled “OHR, APO & Payroll System Initiatives At a Glance,” and pointed out the upcoming rollout dates of June 30 for Employee Self-Service, and July 14 for eRecruit. He said that today a preliminary version of the eRecruit system would be demonstrated for the Steering Committee.

David distributed a packet of eRecruit screen shots, and said that the system is meant to serve internal and external job applicants, and departments recruiting for open positions. Kim Miller gave an overview of the hiring situation, saying that we have 65,000 75,000 applicants for UC jobs each year, and communication with applicants has been a source of complaints. The eRecruit system manages the application process, giving applicants the ability to view the status of applications, and departments the ability to view resumes and set up interview appointments. Notification letters will be replaced by email, paper handling will be eliminated, and the system will decrease recruitment cost. Chansonette Buck demonstrated the development version of eRecruit, emphasizing the applicants’ view of the system.

Kelly Haberer distributed copies of selected slides from a presentation given in March on the HRMS Infrastructure, plus statistics on Administer Workforce (419 user departments, 42,000 employees), the Berkeley Administrative Initiatives Reporting System (1,700 BAIRS logins, 2,400 reports run each day), and the HRMS Next Phase (100,000 applicants for staff positions expected in 2003-04). Jack McCredie noted that the privacy/security problem with CSU’s PeopleSoft HR implementation, where authenticated users have access to all available information, is not an issue with Berkeley’s HRMS, where each user is authorized to see only information relevant to his or her needs. Kelly went on to discuss the HRMS Next-Phase Vital Statistics: seven new sub-systems will be added to HRMS to meet eRecruit, Self-Service, and Academic Personnel requirements, while four existing systems will be decommissioned.

Paul Gray asked about the user response to the system (feedback has been positive) and whether Academic Personnel functions were starting to roll out (yes; there will be more information at the next Steering Committee meeting). Paul thanked David for his leadership on this important project.

One other topic: Jon Conhaim reported that Philip Stark and the Educational Technology Committee are working on recommendations for email messages and attachments for discussion at a future meeting.

Future Meetings

Wednesday, June 18, 2003, 2:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m., Chancellor’s Conference Room, California Hall

Thursday, September 18, 2003, 2:00 4:00 p.m., Chancellor’s Conference Room, California Hall

__________________________________________________________________

Email group: e-berkeley_steering@listlink.berkeley.edu

Please send corrections and comments to: Sheila Press, avc_asst@uclink.berkeley.edu