DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

January 8, 2002

 

Attending:  John Simpson, M.R.C. Greenwood, Cathy Sandeen, Leslie Sunell, George Brown, Lan Dyson, Lynda Goff, Tom Vani, Larry Merkley, Marty Chemers, Ed Houghton, Ron Suduiko, Meredith Michaels, Steve Kang, George Blumenthal, Bob Meister, Susan Gillman, Barbara Brogan, Francisco Hernandez, Robert Miller, Wlad Godzich, Frank Talamantes, David Kliger

 

Guests: Mark Cianca, Michael Tanner, Kevin Browne

 

Staff:  Linda Kittle, Beau Willis, Mary-Beth Harhen, Galen Jarvinen

 

 

Academic Information System (AIS)

 

CP/EVC Simpson noted that the new AIS is a critical technology component of the campus’ strategy for the future.  Given the budget exigencies facing the campus over the next few years, however, he wanted a full discussion of the system benefits, costs, and timing within PAC.  IT Consultant Merkley added that he supported a review of the AIS at this time because the decision to move forward was one of the campus’ most important business decisions and it competes with all the other campus funding priorities.

 

In this context, Vice Chancellor Hernandez and AIS Director/Project Manager Cianca provided an overview presentation and distributed summary cost and benefit information. 

 

During their presentation, they made the following observations:

  • The impact of enrollment growth and continued innovations in technology prompted Student Affairs to review how their services are delivered to the campus.  In particular, they considered how technology could be used to provide expanded services, increase customer satisfaction, improve employee productivity, and reduce cost.  Based upon this review, the division has developed a “70-20-10” service model goal (where 70% is delivered via self-serve mechanisms, 20% via interaction with generalists, and 10% via interaction with specialists) that emphasizes a new “just in time and just for me” student expectation approach to service delivery practice.  This requires increasing the availability of services to “24/7” operations.
    • The new academic information system is a key component of that strategy.
    • Also key to that strategy is developing complete and accurate information needed to support all three service delivery approaches.

The campus’ current student information system is quite old, no longer supported by the vendor, and its failure places the campus at risk.

  • Because of the complexity of the AIS, the implementation is proceeding in phases.
    • The current phase (i.e., documenting the campus’ business processes, researching best practices, setting up the technical environment to support the AIS, and setting the scope of the project) will be completed by June 30, 2002.
    • Implementation will begin with the financial aid modules since this is the area where the campus is most at risk in using its current technology.  Next in the implementation sequence are billings/receivables, registration/records, and admissions, respectively.
  • Most of the project costs are associated with staffing (i.e., campus-based staffing devoted to the design and implementation of the system; consulting support from the software vendor; and training costs).  Hardware and software costs represent only 17% of implementation costs.  Accordingly, the implementation team has placed strict controls on project scope and design philosophy to control these costs.
    • An Executive Committee (chaired by Vice Chancellor Hernandez) provides overall direction, scope management, and risk mitigation.
    • A Steering Committee, with membership from the spectrum of campus academic and academic support communities, provides leadership campuswide in support of the AIS project and helps to resolve implementation and policy issues that are escalated to it by the Project Manager.
    • Project Manager Cianca ensures that affected clients throughout the campus (e.g., deans, assistant deans, curriculum managers, department managers, etc.) are regularly engaged in discussions and planning for the project.  The Project Manager also manages the relationship with the vendor to strictly control the consulting costs.

Recognizing that software customization will have a major impact on the implementation and on-going support costs, the Executive Committee has articulated the expense management principle that customization will be an exception, not the norm.

  • Among the implementation options open to the campus at this point are:
    • Proceed as planned (i.e., bring to the campus new functionality including web-based access to academic information, implement the technical foundation that will accommodate the campus’ growth over the next decade including that at the proposed Silicon Valley Center, and reduce the institutional risk associated with the existing system).  This option requires a significant investment, however, at a time of heightened resource constraints.
    • Delay the AIS project by two or more years (i.e., use the additional time to develop a financial reserve for implementation and to develop alternative funding mechanisms).  This option places the campus at risk (e.g., the implementation momentum resulting from current efforts is lost, the current system may fail—particularly the mainframe on which it is hosted) and the “savings” that result is based upon a false sense of economy.
    • Partially implement AIS (i.e., implement those modules for which the campus is at greatest risk such as financial aid, provide limited web functionality).  This option provides limited (40%) functionality at nearly the full (70%) cost and requires that campus maintain two complete infrastructures as well as develop interfaces between the two.
    • Use a system that is operational at a sister UC campus.  The AIS team feels that while partnering is attractive, the costs will be greater than implementing the system locally.  (Note, however, that in order to spread the local implementation costs over a larger base, discussions are underway with other potential users of the AIS, including UCSC Extension and other programs within UC.)

 

In the discussion that followed, the following points were raised:

  • IT Consultant Merkley provided the following advice:
    • Is AIS the right technical decision?  Based upon his review (and the review of Professor McDowell, a member of ITC), yes.
    • Is AIS the right business decision?  This is an issue for campus management with the advice of PAC.
    • Can the campus successfully implement AIS?  The answer to this question depends upon how we deal with expectations (i.e., AIS can’t simultaneously be “fast”, “cheap”, and “good”); if we manage expectations, carefully control scope, and follow the plan and management review articulated, the campus can be successful.
    • If we commit to this project, how do we pay for it?  E.g., invest now and then amortize the costs over a number of years.  This is an issue for campus management.

The AIS project is a huge undertaking that involves an investment and ownership by individuals and departments campuswide.  One of the mistakes that are often made in IT projects is to constantly revisit the decision to proceed.  The campus leadership represented by PAC must exhibit sustained commit to this project.

  • Project Steward/Vice Chancellor Hernandez indicated that he is confident that AIS is the right business decision and that the campus can successfully implement it.  One of the techniques he plans to use to ensure that confidence levels remain high is to be very open about the project and post ongoing updates on the web.
    • General information for the campus community will be posted at http://ais.ucsc.edu (publicly available); and
    • Detailed information designed to enhance communication within the project teams will be posted at http://its.ucsc.edu (user ID and password required).

  • Whether an entirely different approach should be considered—one based on industry standard tools to implement a straightforward database migration and a JAVA-based front end to that database.  Alternatively, whether UC could use its market clout to get a system designed for it.

  • Whether the campus could implement the system now and figure out a way to pay for its implementation costs over a longer period of time (in order to mitigate the financial outlay during the next several years of the State economic difficulties).  Some members felt that this option was preferable to delaying the project.

    •  

 

Next steps.

 

  • Follow-up:  CP/EVC Simpson will develop a financial plan for implementing AIS as part of the campus’ ten-year resource plan.

 

 

 

Information Updates

 

·        The update on the PAC Fundraising Task Force was deferred because of lack of time.