Back
to Minutes and Agendas
University
of California, Berkeley
MINUTES
OF THE E-BERKELEY
STEERING COMMITTEE
Meeting of August
28, 2002
3401
Dwinelle Hall
Members present:
EVC and Provost Paul Gray, Chair, AVC Greg Brown, VC Beth Burnside, AVC Ron
Coley, Director Jon Conhaim, VC Ed Denton, Professor Ken Goldberg, VC Jim
Hyatt, University Librarian Tom Leonard, Assoc. Dean Michael Mascuch for Dean
Ralph Hexter, VP Christina Maslach, AVC Jack McCredie, Chief Technology Officer
Tessa Michaels, VC Horace Mitchell, AVC David Moers, Director Ralph Moon,
Director Barbara Morgan, Assoc. Dean Jeff Reimer for Dean Mary Ann Mason,
Professor Philip Stark.
Also attending: Mara Hancock and Victor Edmonds, Educational Technology
Services, and David Scronce, Office of Human Resources.
1. Welcome
and Approval of Minutes from April 18, 2002 Meeting
Paul Gray noted that we are starting Year 3
of the e-Berkeley initiative, which has made a significant impact on campus.
We need to keep the momentum going and the objectives in mind. Minutes from
the June 27th meeting were approved as distributed.
2. Human Resources Management System (HRMS)
Success Story
Tessa Michaels and David Scronce presented
a document outlining the progress on HRMS, starting with the launch on July
1, 2002. Tessa said that 60 users in 10 Early Adopter departments and central
offices have been very helpful from the start, and a follow-up forum is being
held regarding their experiences. New forms have been created in response
to user feedback. An additional 100 staff in 26 departments have been trained;
Tessa noted that assessment of the training shows that most people are able
to absorb it the first time around.
The new system has been used to produce eight
payroll cycles and to hire/rehire 1,050 employees. The Help Desk is responding
to about 500 calls per week. A total of about 550 users will go online during
the Phase I rollout, scheduled to be completed in early November. Once all
departments are online, the Data Services Team will be cut back, and paper
forms will only be needed for new hires and special situations.
Phase II involves conversion of historical
data from the Academic Personnel System in fall 2002, plus recruitment and
self-service features, using the PeopleSoft Portal, in 2003. David Scronce
explained some of these features in greater detail.
Jack McCredie reported on the technical aspects
of HRMS, saying that the conversion this summer went fairly smoothly, with
the functional and technical teams working well together. One ongoing problem
is the difficulty of keeping HRMS absolutely synchronized with the UCOP payroll
system, given frequent PPS changes (about 70 per year) generated by the State,
OP, the IRS, or collective bargaining. Another issue is the PeopleSoft Portal
product, which did not work well enough to be used in Phase I but will be
needed for easy-to-use self-service applications scheduled for Phase II. Jack
said that the best way to solve these problems is to work with another entity
that has the same environment and has implemented the system. David Moers
suggested Cal State as a resource, since CSU is implementing all PeopleSoft
products on all campuses; Tessa will follow up.
Jack spoke about the UCOP systemwide initiative
to develop a more common HR environment. KPMG consultants recommended last
year that UC develop a prototype (effectively, Berkeley is fulfilling that
role). UC Davis is interested in learning from Berkeley’s experience,
and an initial meeting with UCD visitors went well.
Jack cautioned that with the substantial budget
cuts this year in HRMS and BFS, it is time to evaluate the Phase II plans
to see what can and can’t be done. David Scronce noted that some features
(faculty case tracking, faculty self-service, and performance measures) have
already been cut from the Phase II plan to conform to the budget cuts, and
agreed that re-evaluation needs to be done.
Paul Gray congratulated all the implementers on great work and a great success.
3. Enterprise Learning Management System:
Evaluation of Vendor Proposals
Christina Maslach and Mara Hancock described
the current status of the LMS project. Christina outlined the challenges we
face as we bring more students into an aging infrastructure. Technology can
help by providing leverage in how we teach and how students learn. She stated
that we need a common foundation to build innovative ways for faculty and
students to work together, replacing the patchwork of low-end systems we have
now (older versions of BlackBoard and WebCT, CourseWeb, and independent systems
developed by individual faculty).
Mara distributed a report on the RFP process
and project milestones for a new Learning Management System, and a document
titled “Why an Enterprise LMS Now,” explaining the factors taken
into consideration by the Education Technology Committee group that prepared
the RFP. Two vendors out of the five responding to the RFP passed the functional
screening for referral to the technical team. These two vendors are currently
undergoing a financial review; product demos and usability testing are still
to come.
Paul Gray, Mara Hancock, Jack McCredie and
Christina Maslach met to discuss funding of the project. Incremental costs
over current funding would be around $500,000 for the first year and about
$400,000 per year for ongoing support. Paul Gray stated that there is no funding
available in the existing budget and other sources will need to be found if
the project is to go forward. Ron Coley noted that the LMS system could also
be used for staff training, and staff development funds might be a source.
Ken Goldberg suggested asking for funds to develop learning tools to assist
in handing courses off to UC Merced, and Jim Hyatt agreed that this is a possibility.
ACTION:
Paul Gray will talk with the Chancellor, and Paul and Christina will investigate
the Merced possibility. A decision will be made within the next three weeks
on whether the LMS project will go forward at this time.
4. Current Implementation Plans for Ongoing
e-Berkeley Projects (Reduced Funding)
Jack McCredie reported that IST is doing everything
possible to keep all nine e-Berkeley projects going in the face of budget
cuts, but he cannot finish the analysis of specific changes in scope or timing
without the LMS budget decision.
Jack noted that the FY 2002 budget request for ongoing permanent funds for
the nine projects was $1,330,000. The amount received on a permanent basis
was $550,000, leaving a shortfall of $780,000 (partially offset by temporary
funds). A request was made in FY 2003 to make up the difference but no permanent
funding is available.
IST is now looking for unallocated funds from
other projects that have changed scope to help make up the shortfall. Jack
is concerned that using up unallocated funds now may jeopardize future work,
and he stressed that the committee should know there are problems ahead. Jon
Conhaim added that managers are concentrating on features and aren’t
thinking enough about ongoing costs when project proposals are submitted;
he suggested that better ways be found to get managers to include ongoing
costs. Jack asked that more analysis be done of projects chosen for implementation;
the recent LMS analysis is an exemplary effort to understand operating costs
and should be a model.
5. E-Berkeley Communication and Management
Updates
Jon Conhaim described a brochure being developed
to inform campus departments, UCOP, other universities, and potential funders
about e-Berkeley activities and how to participate. The Program Office is
working with University Relations on the design of the brochure, which will
be completed by the end of October.
Jon distributed copies of the simple online
Project Registration form. It is one method of coordinating the work of project
managers, as registration will be followed up with an intake interview and
face-to-face discussions, and possibly will result in increased collaboration
among project owners. Project managers will receive immediate contact and
reference information, and data owners and system managers will be alerted
to new projects that may impact them.
Jon also reported on the 2-1/2 day Project
Management training class, which will be offered again in September (following
a well-received session in June).
6. E-Berkeley Symposium (May 2, 2003)
Christina Maslach described the current plans
for the symposium, which will focus on developing a larger vision for educational
technology. What are we aiming for, and how can we move in a more integrated
way? (Berkeley is seen as fragmented by foundations and others.) The work
on the symposium dovetails with the WASC accreditation process, which emphasizes
rethinking education.
A planning group has begun work with Senate and key faculty participation.
The symposium is scheduled for May 2003 but there will be one or two sessions
in 2002 to develop symposium themes and perhaps prepare white papers. Christina
noted that it is important to include faculty with different perspectives
in these meetings.
7. Request from Graduate Assembly
for Student Representation on EBSC
Sheila Press presented a request from Mary
Paster, Academic Affairs Vice President for the Graduate Assembly, to appoint
a student representative to the Steering Committee. Mary recommended SIMS
student Charis Kaskiris. Paul Gray spoke about the value of student input,
and also mentioned the discretion with which some topics discussed at meetings
should be handled. He said it is important to have both undergraduate and
graduate student representatives on the committee. He asked for opinions about
this matter; the members were generally positive and there were no objections.
ACTION:
Paul Gray’s staff will develop a process for including student representatives.
8. Project Announcements
Jack McCredie announced that the 2002 all-campus
UC Computing Services Conference was held at Berkeley at the end of July (http://uccsc.berkeley.edu/uccscfaq.html
). The theme was “Improving Life Through Technology” and more than
300 people attended. The Larry Sautter Award (a memorial award for best practices
and innovation) was presented to the UC Berkeley Webcast team. Jack passed
around the award plaque.
Jack also distributed copies of the draft Campus
Information Technology Security Policy being developed by the Campus Information
Security Committee (CISC). Jack highlighted a key sentence from the policy:
“Each member of the campus community is responsible for the security
and protection of electronic information resources over which he or she has
control.” The policy will be sent to campus departments for feedback
and then to the Steering Committee for approval. The draft policy is online
at: http://socrates.berkeley.edu:2002/DRAFTS/IT.sec.policy.html
Ron Coley reported that there has been positive
momentum on Travel improvements and there will be a presentation at the next
Steering Committee meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.