UW Strategic Roadmap for Administrative Systems

Draft University of WashingtonStrategic Roadmap for Information Management &

Administrative Systems

University of Washington

Strategic RoadmapFor Information

Management and Administrative Systems

December 2008


Administrative SystemsTable of Contents

ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT...................................................................................5

THE NEED FOR A STRATEGIC ROADMAP.......................................................6

The Challenge.................................................................................................................................................6

A Collaborative Process.................................................................................................................................7

Roadmap Recommendations.........................................................................................................................7

GUIDING PRINCIPLES.........................................................................................8

Background and Purpose...............................................................................................................................8

The Guiding Principles..................................................................................................................................9Information..................................................................................................................................................9Governance and Investment........................................................................................................................9Solutions and Processes...............................................................................................................................9

ROADMAP INITIATIVES......................................................................................9

Information for Decision Making...............................................................................................................10

Replace the Base...........................................................................................................................................13

Redesign Processes.......................................................................................................................................18

Enhance and Renew Systems......................................................................................................................20

Prioritize and Make Decisions.....................................................................................................................21

ROADMAP ACTION PLAN................................................................................24

Information for Decision Making...............................................................................................................25

Replace the Base...........................................................................................................................................25

Redesign Processes.......................................................................................................................................26

Enhance and Renew Systems......................................................................................................................27

Prioritize and Make Decisions.....................................................................................................................28

REPLACE THE BASE ALTERNATIVES AND APPROACHES.........................28


Administrative SystemsFour Alternatives..........................................................................................................................................28

What Others Are Doing...............................................................................................................................29

When and How Long?..................................................................................................................................34

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................36

Next Steps......................................................................................................................................................36

Workforce Planning.....................................................................................................................................37

Updates to the Roadmap..............................................................................................................................37

Invest in the Future......................................................................................................................................37

APPENDICES.....................................................................................................39

I. CURRENT STAFFING ALLOCATIONS FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS........................................39

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................39

Staffing Support for Information Management and Administrative Systems......................................39Staff Allocation by Activity Type.............................................................................................................39Overview of Functional Areas...................................................................................................................40Staff Allocation by Functional Area..........................................................................................................41

Staffing Support for Technical Infrastructure..........................................................................................47

II. HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF UW INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS............................................................................49

Prior Information Management and Administrative Systems Strategy.................................................49

IS Futures Task Force..................................................................................................................................50

Office of Information Management............................................................................................................51

III. THE STRATEGIC ROADMAP PROJECT: DEVELOPING THE ROADMAP..........................................................................................................53

Project Objectives and Scope......................................................................................................................53

Project Approach..........................................................................................................................................55Project Planning.........................................................................................................................................55


Administrative SystemsPerform Discovery.....................................................................................................................................55Document Current State............................................................................................................................56Research Trends.........................................................................................................................................56Define the Vision.......................................................................................................................................56Analyze the Gap........................................................................................................................................57Develop Action Plan..................................................................................................................................57

Project Structure..........................................................................................................................................57

Project Phase Results...................................................................................................................................58Discovery Process......................................................................................................................................58Summary of Themes..................................................................................................................................59Current State Assessment..........................................................................................................................60Summary of Current State Findings..........................................................................................................60Funding for IM/AS....................................................................................................................................63Vision.........................................................................................................................................................63

Initiatives and Action Plan..........................................................................................................................67

IV. CONTRIBUTORS.....................................................................................68


Administrative SystemsAbout This DocumentThe University of Washington Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap) sets forth a long-term vision and comprehensive plan for the future of UW information management and administrative systems.

This Document

This document is the official printed version of the Roadmap. This document covers:

Why the UW needs a strategic plan for information management and administrative systems (IM/AS).

How the Roadmap was developed. Guiding principles for Roadmap implementation. Five recommended Roadmap initiatives and the action plans for implementing them. Alternatives and approaches for the “Replace the Base” initiative. This initiative will

involve significant commitment and investment, and so alternatives and approaches are discussed in depth.

Next steps, including short-term priorities, the need for workforce planning, how updates will be made to this plan, and why a funding model is needed to support ongoing efforts.

Appendices

The report has four appendices that cover:

Current staffing allocations for IM/AS History and context of UW IM/AS A detailed discussion of the strategic roadmap project and report development List of contributors to the Roadmap project

On the Web

The Strategic Roadmap Web site contains all this information, and it provides more detail. See: https://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/index.html

Contact

http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/choices/


Administrative SystemsFor additional information, please contact the OIM Communications & Outreach group ([email protected]).

http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/EmergingThemes_May2007.pdf


Administrative SystemsThe Need for a Strategic RoadmapIn 2006, the University of Washington’s Provost charged a special task force with taking a comprehensive look at the University’s critical information technology needs. After three months of intensive investigation, the IS Futures Task Force found that the University of Washington (UW) did not have a clear vision or long-term strategy for the administrative systems that support its core business operations or for the information management essential for running a complex enterprise.

Without a clear vision and strategy, there was no institutional context for prioritizing information management and administrative systems projects or allocating resources, and no framework for understanding how individual requests would help meet the UW’s long-term needs.

The University of Washington Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap) was developed in response to the task force findings.

The Roadmap sets forth a long-term vision for the future of UW information management and administrative systems aligned with the institution’s business goals and priorities. It provides a strategic framework for prioritizing projects, making decisions, and allocating resources. It outlines an action plan with five key initiatives to meet the enormous range of challenges the UW faces in providing administrative systems and information to support a large, diverse, and global institution.

THE CHALLENGE

The University of Washington is one of the nation’s premier research institutions, receiving more federal research funding than any other public institution of higher education in the country. Yet the administrative systems that support its business operations are among the oldest and most archaic of its peer institutions. As a result, the University is facing the following critical challenges:

The UW’s legacy systems no longer support this institution’s 21st century business and information needs. The University’s 26-to-34-year-old systems have limited


Administrative Systemsfunctionality and are becoming increasingly difficult to upgrade. Operational inefficiencies are negatively impacting the productivity of faculty and staff at every level of this institution. Departments and units have developed hundreds of redundant shadow systems to compensate for missing functionality, at considerable cost and effort.

University faculty and staff cannot get the information they need to support effective management and decision-making. Even basic information—such as student headcount by major or financial resources for a given fiscal period—takes an extraordinary effort to obtain. Lack of institutional definitions for data as basic as “student FTE” and “faculty FTE” undermines the accuracy of the information and makes cross-institutional comparisons problematic.

The UW has consciously underinvested in its administrative systems and fallen behind its peers. Of a peer group of 30 research/doctorate institutions, only one has a financial system older than the UW’s, only two have older student systems, and only four have older HR/payroll systems. (See UW Peers on page 31.)

The Roadmap outlines a plan to address these challenges and to bring the University’s administrative systems and information management services into the 21st century.

A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS

Development of the Roadmap was an intensive, six-month collaborative effort involving more than 170 stakeholders across the University.

The project was initiated in the fall of 2007 in response to the IS Futures Task Force and at the request of the Board of Deans and Chancellors, the Information Management Advisory Committee, and other key stakeholders. It culminated in March 2008 with the completion of the Roadmap action plan. The project was coordinated by the Office of Information Management, with the Information Management Advisory Committee serving as the project’s steering committee. Executive sponsors included Provost Phyllis Wise and Vice President for UW Technology Ron Johnson.

Teams of stakeholders representing schools, colleges, campuses, medical centers, deans, faculty, researchers, and central


Administrative Systemsadministrators delved into the detail of the University’s current systems and processes, evaluating challenges and identifying risks. Divided into task groups, they focused on three key areas: administrative systems, information management, and governance.

The task groups analyzed the current state of the UW’s systems and processes. They developed a vision of where the University needs to be in ten years and outlined action plans for getting there. Their work was overseen by the Roadmap Working Team, which included task group leads and other business leaders. The Roadmap Working Team integrated task group recommendations and produced the final recommended action plan. (Details about the Roadmap project and process are available in Appendix III. A full list of contributors is available in Appendix IV.)

The result of this work is the first-ever comprehensive view of the University’s current information management and administrative systems’ (IM/AS) challenges and an action plan for moving the University forward.

ROADMAP RECOMMENDATIONS

The Roadmap recommends five key initiatives to fundamentally transform the University’s business operations. A detailed description of each initiative is provided later in this document. (See Roadmap Initiatives on page 9.)

Information for Decision Making: Develop the common data definitions, infrastructure, tools, integration framework, and training necessary to provide access to accurate, useful information and analysis.

Replace the Base: Replace the UW’s aging legacy administrative systems with modern, flexible systems that can keep pace with evolving business needs. Legacy systems to be replaced include finance, budget, procurement, human resources, payroll, and student administration.

Redesign Processes: Design consistent, streamlined business processes that leverage new technologies, achieve increased operational efficiencies, and help to manage change. Process redesign will happen hand-in-hand with all system replacement and upgrade projects.


Administrative Systems Enhance and Renew Systems: Invest in ongoing enhancement,

development, and technology renewal of core administrative systems to keep pace with changing business needs.

Prioritize and Make Decisions: Develop a transparent decision-making process and a mature portfolio management framework that enables the UW to set institutional priorities, make strategic choices, and maximize its investments. Provide the support structures necessary to enable collaborative projects across UW units.

Guiding Principles

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

An important part of the planning effort was the development of a series of Guiding Principles that articulate key values and directions that will guide the implementation of the Roadmap and future IM/AS decision making. The Guiding Principles provide a vital framework for all levels of decision making about IM/AS strategies, directions, and implementation across the University.

The Guiding Principles were developed by the Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC) with input from stakeholders involved in the Roadmap effort. The development included a review of guiding principles from peer institutions and of relevant literature on the topic. A final version was adopted by I-MAC in May 2008. The Guiding Principles will be evaluated annually as part of the Roadmap review process to ensure they remain relevant and meaningful.

The Guiding Principles cover three areas: Information, Governance and Investment, and Solutions and Processes.

THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Information We will support a culture of inquiry and information-based decision-

making. We will maintain an environment of open information sharing.


Administrative SystemsGovernance and Investment We will make investment decisions based upon advancing the UW’s

strategic goals. We will ensure that our decision making process engages our

stakeholders and maximizes our investments. We will provide for sustainability and continuous improvement. We will accept a reasonable level of risk and balance risk with

anticipated benefit.

Solutions and Processes We will consider holistic solutions that encourage business process

improvement. We will invest in appropriate solutions rather than commit to a

single technology, vendor, or approach. We will place a priority on interoperable solutions. We will develop shared solutions for common needs and support

local solutions for specialized needs.

Roadmap Initiatives The Roadmap recommends five key initiatives (see diagram at left) to meet the University’s business and information needs into the future. Together, these initiatives address the key challenges the University faces in delivering information for decision making and supporting its

business operations.

These initiatives build upon one another, and each is essential to the success of the whole. Progress must be made on each to develop the modern, flexible systems and processes needed to support the UW’s future business operations. The goals and rationale for each initiative are described in this section.


Administrative SystemsINFORMATION FOR DECISION MAKING

Continue to develop the consistent data definitions, tools, infrastructure, integration framework, and training necessary to provide access to accurate, useful information for decision making.

Key benefits: Provide easier access to information for

decision making Integrate data across subject areas Provide tools and training so users can

ask questions, analyze results, and produce meaningful reports

One of the leading concerns raised by stakeholders during the Roadmap process was the lack of access to timely, accurate information for decision making. At every level of the University, people do not have access to the information they need to manage effectively. Even basic information—such as student headcount by major, number of full-time faculty in a given school or college, or financial resources for a given fiscal period—is extraordinarily difficult to obtain. Key challenges in this area include:

Lack of institutional definitions for commonly used data such as student FTE or faculty FTE. This makes it difficult to track and compare data across units, have a common understanding of what the data means, or get common answers to basic questions.

Lack of historical data makes it hard to track trends or perform strategic analysis. There is limited ability to track people, money, and space over time.

Lack of integration across systems makes it challenging to develop a holistic view of the information or track and analyze trends.


Administrative Systems Lack of access to central data at the unit level means that

schools, colleges, and departments cannot perform critical analysis needed to manage their businesses. To compensate for this and other inadequacies, units have developed hundreds of shadow systems that contain duplicative and often conflicting data. These shadow systems raise serious security concerns, since security access policies are inconsistent and not well understood across units, and knowledge and expertise about computing security is uneven.

This initiative includes a number of critical projects to provide access to data and to the tools and training necessary for units to be able to interpret the data, perform analysis, and produce meaningful reports. Projects also focus on building the necessary support infrastructure.

It is important to note that the Roadmap’s other initiatives are also critical to achieving the goals of this initiative. In particular, the Replace the Base initiative is important because the UW’s current systems do not capture some critical information, and these systems will have to be replaced before the University can have access to all of the information it needs.

The Information for Decision Making projects fall under three major action areas: Information Intelligence & Delivery, Information Integration & Design, and Information Infrastructure & Definitions. What follows is an overview of proposed projects under each action area.

Information Intelligence & Delivery

Projects under this action area include:

Continue to enhance business intelligence tools that enable users to analyze and summarize data and produce meaningful reports. These tools also enable users to see and analyze data at a detailed level.

Standardize how institutional data is produced and reported by continuing the work started by the "Deans’ Top 5 Questions" project. This will ensure that data is being collected and reported consistently across the institution. The Deans’ Top 5 Questions


Administrative Systemsproject focused on answering the five most critical data questions as identified by deans, including:

o Student headcount for a given school/collegeo Student credit hours for a given school/collegeo Faculty headcount by appointment typeo Faculty FTE by appointment typeo Permanent operating budget by GOF, DOF, and RCR

An additional goal of the project was to create a repeatable process for continuing to define institutional data.

Provide an enterprise portal and search tools so that users can have easy access to all the information, tools, and resources they need in a single place.

Create and deliver custom training programs for analysts, developers, and end users covering best practices in data access and use. This will ensure that users understand the data they are using and that developers can avoid redundant development work by using shared tools and services.

Information Integration & Design


Provide shared tools for departments and units that they can easily extend and customize to support both enterprise and local applications. This includes implementing workflow tools, a business rules engine, and a message queuing infrastructure.

Enable collaborative development efforts across the University. This will allow units to see the functionality that has been developed by other units, reuse it, or integrate it into a new application.

Develop applications that support the consistent implementation of security roles and authorization schemes across all systems. This will allow the UW to establish consistent security rules and support single sign-on to access multiple systems and reports.

Acquire tools and provide training to business analysts including business process modeling, data modeling, and Web services


Administrative Systemsmodeling. This will support consistency and improve the quality of business process design.

Establish and promote communities of interest to help design solutions that can work together.

Information Infrastructure & Definitions

All of the Information for Decision Making projects will be supported by the projects under the Information Infrastructure & Definitions action area. Projects under this action area include:

Develop common data definitions and make key common data available to the enterprise. This will allow systems to be integrated more easily and will improve the integrity of data reporting between them. It also will enable people across the University to access consistent, accurate data and compare data across units.

Continue to expand the enterprise data warehouse including the build-out of new subject areas. This will enable improved access to data across subject areas and better data integration.

Acquire an electronic document management and imaging system to enable online access to business documents through an enterprise portal. This will eliminate the need for multiple document copies, reduce paper storage requirements, and support consistent records retention policies.

Develop policies, practices, standards, and guidelines for the governance and management of information.

Develop the necessary infrastructure to support access to integrated data across subject areas.


Administrative SystemsREPLACE THE BASE

Replace the UW’s aging legacy systems with modern, flexible systems. Systems to be replaced include finance, budget, procurement, HR/payroll, and student administration.

Key benefits: Provide modern, agile, and flexible

systems Improve operational efficiency Provide better information for

decision making Keep pace with changing business

needs

Why Replace the Base?

The University of Washington’s legacy systems are vital to the daily operations of this institution, supporting the work of roughly 72,000 faculty, students, and staff. The workhorses of the University, these systems store thousands of rules about the way the UW does business and process hundreds of thousands of transactions a day. They provide indirect, but nonetheless essential support to the University’s mission of teaching, research, and public service. The systems:

Pay employees $1.6 billion annually Receive and distribute $1.1 billion in research grants

annually Handle UW financial transactions, processing 1.45 million

transactions monthly Register students online, processing more than 500

transactions per minute during peak times Retain the official academic records of 761,000 UW students

—every attendee since 1981


Administrative Systems Keep UW operations running, routinely handling more than

700,000 transactions daily with an average response time of under two seconds

The University’s Aging Systems

The University’s systems date back to the early 1970s and 1980s when this institution’s operating environment was substantially less complex than it is today. They were designed to support the UW at a time when the state provided the majority of its funding. Today, state funding makes up less than 13 percent of the University’s $3 billion in annual revenue. The largest source is grants and contracts that total about $1 billion per year. In addition, self-sustaining operations have grown exponentially. This increasingly diversified funding base demands a more sophisticated management approach. The UW’s systems are not keeping up.

In fact, the University legacy systems are among the oldest and most archaic of its peer institutions. Most of the University’s peers have long since upgraded their systems, leaving the UW in a small minority of peers with systems dating back 30 years. (More information about peers is included later in the report. (See UW Peers on page 31.)

Operational Inefficiencies Are Eroding Productivity

The inadequacy of these systems is resulting in operational inefficiencies that impact people at every level of this institution. It is difficult for faculty and staff to perform even the most basic functions, such as hiring, purchasing, tracking and managing multiple budgets, and making accurate budget projections.

The systems lack basic tools and functionality to help staff do their work, such as controls to prevent over-spending, visibility into pending financial transactions, or ability to do financial reporting at the unit or department level. The systems do not collect the level and detail of data required to meet the UW’s growing information needs.

As a result, staff must engage in “daily heroics” just to keep business operations running and get the information they need to do their jobs. They must go to extraordinary effort to perform basic job duties, employing numerous manual workarounds and engaging in other


Administrative Systemscumbersome and time-consuming processes that take away from higher-level work.

To compensate for missing functionality, departments and units across the University have created hundreds of shadow systems at considerable cost and effort. These shadow systems represent a significant security risk to the University, and maintaining them is costly and inefficient.

Staffing Challenges Increase Risk

Added to these challenges is the fact that only a handful of staff now understands the University’s legacy systems, and this staff will retire in the next five-to-ten years. Recruiting new staff with expertise in COBOL, the programming language used by these systems, will be increasingly difficult. The lack of COBOL programmers is an industry-wide problem, and there are efforts underway to train new ones. However, even if these efforts are successful, the programmers are not likely to be of the same caliber as those retiring and will not know the UW’s systems.

These problems with the legacy systems are chronic and systemic. While the risk of sudden failure is small, the real challenge is that the systems are becoming increasingly complex and difficult to maintain in response to changing regulations and business requirements. This challenge will only grow over time, making each future update more difficult, time consuming, and costly.

A New Strategy is Needed

The UW’s strategy of continuing to maintain and enhance its current legacy systems has worked for a number of years, enabling the UW to focus its resources on higher priorities while making small, incremental investments in its legacy systems.

However, efforts to enhance and extend these systems have gone as far as they can go. These systems already do not meet the University’s rapidly changing business and compliance needs, and that gap is widening with each passing year as the systems grow more complex, harder to maintain and revise, and more unwieldy and unresponsive.


Administrative SystemsFactoring in the time needed for planning, funding, and approval processes, it is likely to take five-to-six years to replace the legacy financial and procurement systems alone. By that time, the existing systems will be almost 40 years old.

Given the time it will take to replace these systems, it is important that the University begin planning in earnest now. Delay will prolong the process and increase the risks and costs. The University needs to commit the resources and effort required to “replace the base,” and to support its critical business and information needs into the future.

The Three System Replacement Projects

Replacing the University’s three legacy systems will eliminate many of the operational inefficiencies eroding faculty and staff productivity. The new systems will provide critical data for decision-making and collect the level of detailed data required to meet the University’s growing information needs. These replacement projects will include:

Financial, Budget and Procurement Systems This project would replace the UW’s current legacy financial, budget, and procurement systems. The new system(s) should provide:

o A new chart of accounts and organization structure to provide financial reports at a more detailed level and support interdisciplinary programs

o Capture of transactional data at a more detailed level to provide analytical information and controls to manage spending

o Timely unit-level financial statements to provide business unit managers with the budget and actual financial information to manage their business effectively

o Performance management and metrics to support the University’s accountability objectives

o Financial reporting on a biennial, fiscal year, and life-to-date basis to provide financial managers with information to manage the University’s finances


Administrative Systemso Stewardship reporting on gifts and grants to provide

stakeholders with more timely, accurate, and useful information

o Access to historical data for comparison and trend analysis

o The ability to track and manage multiple budgets and make budget projections

o Real-time budget spending controls, warning messages, and visibility into pending transactions to prevent over-spending

o The ability to track commitments against budgets

o Vendor contract management capabilities to improve controls, compliance, and efficiency

o Improved integration with equipment management and capital assets systems

o Electronic document management and automated workflow to eliminate manual paper processes, improve efficiencies, improve tracking, and provide all users with easy access to source documents

HR/Payroll System

An integrated solution will be selected to support the life cycle of employment at the University, from recruitment through separation and retirement.

The new system should provide:

o Support for the life cycle of employee activities including recruiting, job descriptions, candidate matching, staffing and workforce management, personnel administration, compensation, benefits, timekeeping, background checks, probationary hiring periods, vacation and leave tracking, payroll, training and development, certification and license tracking, performance evaluations, visas and immigration status, accidents and incidents, health and safety, temporary employment, student employee credit hours, exit


Administrative Systemsinterviews, position vacancies, compliance, employee self service, manager self service, and position control.

o An integrated system for payroll and human resource management for faculty and staff, retaining all information about positions, appointments, and employees, including a full life cycle of employee activities. This should eliminate the proliferation of stand-alone systems and manual processes and improve the efficiency of HR operations. In the long term, access to this information should support the University’s ability to recruit, retain, and develop faculty and staff.

o Faculty management capabilities including tenure dates, interest areas, voting faculty, faculty salary comparisons, and sabbaticals.

o Full compliance with all federal, state, and local tax and regulatory requirements to eliminate manual calculations and compliance reporting.

Student Administration System

An integrated solution will be selected or developed to support student recruitment, admissions, enrollment, course management, graduation, alumni relationships, planning and advising, student life, curriculum management, accreditation, and student finances (financial aid and billing).

The new system should provide:

o A full life cycle of information about students and their activities to allow administrators to provide more complete and customized advisory service

o Support for multiple campuses

o Support for students and faculty involved in interdisciplinary programs

o Information for more complete curriculum planning and management


Administrative Systemso More complete information about student activities and

interests to allow customized contacts by University Advancement staff

Sidebar: UW’s Legacy Systems: Showing Their Age:

The UW’s aging legacy systems that support its core business operations date back to the 1970s and 1980s. As of 2008, as shown in the chart below, these systems include:

A student administration system implemented in 1982 -- 26 years old

A procurement/payables system implemented in 1982 -- 26 years old

A payroll system implemented in 1981 --27 years old A finance/budget system implemented in 1974 -- 34 years old


Administrative SystemsREDESIGN PROCESSES

Design consistent, streamlined business processes to leverage new technologies.

Key benefits: Maximize positive impact of new

systems Streamline work Manage change

The importance of redesigning business processes and managing change to support new technologies is frequently underestimated, as are the associated costs. Failure to rethink business processes as part of system replacement is one of the leading reasons why organizations do not achieve user acceptance or return on technology investments. Organizations must structure new processes to support good controls and predictability and take advantage of technological improvements, while ensuring the processes are flexible enough to respond to changing requirements.

Under this initiative, business process redesign will go hand-in-hand with all major system replacement projects. Changes to business processes may be possible even before the new systems are in place. The focus will be on designing consistent, streamlined business processes that fully leverage new system technologies and capabilities. This approach also will drive development of a culture of ongoing business process improvement and collaboration to develop best practices. In addition, business process redesign will focus on reexamining processes to ensure that they support strategic goals efficiently and effectively. At the UW, business processes supporting finance, procurement, and HR/payroll functions in particular have developed over many years and include work-arounds to compensate for the limited functionality of the legacy systems. These processes must be redesigned in order to leverage new technologies.

Some examples of future redesign efforts might include:


Administrative Systems New financial data entry processes: Currently, many

departments require administrative staff to enter summary data into the central financial systems and then re-enter additional data into shadow systems to accurately capture project details, accruals, and other information to support internal reporting needs. New financial systems will enable users to enter detailed financial data and get the full range of financial reporting they need. Users will be able to redesign current processes to enter data only once, which will reduce redundant and conflicting data and ensure that one source of information can be used for multiple levels of reporting.

New automated workflow processes: Contemporary systems now support automated workflow, electronic documents, and online approvals. These capabilities will reduce paperwork and improve efficiency and tracking. User processes can be redesigned to take maximum advantage of defined roles, responsibilities, escalation, and document storage and retrieval rules in order to streamline workflow, reduce paperwork, support full tracking of approvals, and make source documents available to all who need them.

Streamlined business rules: With new systems, business rules can be captured online. These rule-based systems help ensure compliance and remove the guesswork for new users. The current systems significantly limit the ability to enter and edit online rules. As a result, manual processes and controls have been developed. With the new rules-based systems, many of the manual processes can be eliminated or streamlined, allowing managers to focus on exception reporting.


Administrative SystemsENHANCE AND RENEW SYSTEMS

Invest in ongoing enhancement, development, and technology renewal of all core administrative systems.

Key benefits: Keep up with changing business

needs Continue to add to research

functionality Upgrade alumni, development, and

facilities systems Make high-value interim upgrades to

legacy systems

This initiative focuses on continuing to develop and enhance the UW’s core administrative systems supporting research administration, alumni/development, and facilities and space.

In addition, this initiative recommends that the UW continue to invest in high-value interim upgrades to legacy systems until those systems are replaced. This is especially important because it is likely to take five-to-six years to replace the legacy financial and procurement systems alone. The interim improvements will ensure that the UW can meet its shorter-term compliance and business requirements during the period before the systems are replaced.

Any interim enhancements to systems slated for replacement will be rigorously evaluated to ensure they are required for compliance or other reasons, will provide short-term payback, or will help with eventual migration to a new system.

While this initiative focuses on high-value incremental enhancements to the legacy systems slated for replacement, it is important to note that once the new systems are in place, the UW will need to continue to invest in enhancing and renewing the new systems to keep them current and ensure they do not become the next generation of legacy systems.


Administrative SystemsThis initiative includes enhancements to three areas: research administration, alumni/development, and facilities and space.

Research Administration

Systems that support the mission-critical area of research administration are incomplete and still missing important functionality. Enhancements will focus on creating a research portal with one-stop shopping that will guide researchers and staff through the compliance, administrative, and reporting processes that incorporate the end-to-end research life cycle—from grant submission through outcome reporting. Users will be able to view all compliance activities from this portal.

Projects will focus on continuing to create streamlined, consistent, and integrated systems and processes.

Alumni/Development

In the alumni/development area, the UW already has followed a best-of-breed approach by migrating from the legacy systems to a commercial product called Advance. As a result, the alumni/development system is generally more functional, stable, and reliable than other systems.

However, it is important to continue to enhance and upgrade these systems to meet the changing needs and expectations of donors and to keep up with technology changes so these systems do not become outdated. Enhancement projects will include improving integration with all major UW administrative systems, enhanced stewardship reporting, constituent relationship and life cycle reporting, and technology upgrades.

Facilities and Space

The existing systems and processes supporting facilities and space will need to be updated over the next few years. Better information on costs and usage of space and facilities is needed in order to optimize space utilization, facilitate cost recovery, and improve asset controls—especially management of hazardous materials. As with all other administrative systems, consistent data definitions are needed in this area, as is improved integration with other administrative systems.


Administrative SystemsPRIORITIZE AND MAKE DECISIONS

Develop a transparent decision-making process and a mature portfolio management framework. Enable collaborative projects across units.

Key benefits: Provide strategic direction and

alignment with institutional goals Set priorities and maximize

investments Leverage expertise of departmental

resources across the University

This initiative provides the governance framework necessary to support the other four initiatives. It focuses on developing a transparent governance process for information management and administrative systems (IM/AS) that will enable a cohesive, coordinated, and collaborative approach to prioritization and decision making aligned with institutional priorities.

The initiative will establish a mature portfolio management process that enables the University to align resources and projects with institutional strategic priorities and to maximize investments. To support this effort, the initiative recommends creating a Project Management Office to provide project planning and oversight, portfolio analysis, and to implement project management best practices.

The initiative calls for the development of a predictable and sustainable funding model for IM/AS. Finally, this initiative will put in place the support structures necessary to enable collaboration across units and leverage the expertise of the UW’s development community.

This initiative’s projects fall under five major action areas: Prioritization and Decision Making, Project Intake and Review Process, Staffing, Investment, and Community and Partnership Development. What follows is an overview of proposed projects under each action area.


Administrative SystemsPrioritization and Decision Making


Redefine the role of the Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC) to be a strategic advisory committee for IM/AS directions and initiatives. As part of this process, clarify committee roles and responsibilities, clarify relationship with other Technology Advisory Committees, evaluate membership, and determine the resources required to support I-MAC.

Establish a new project review and oversight committee. To enable I-MAC to focus on strategic issues, establish a new committee to do the more detailed work involved with enterprise-scale project review and oversight (i.e., the current I-MAC proposal process). The committee should consist of key institutional decision-makers and be supported by an effective process that facilitates stakeholder input.

Revise other IM/AS governance priority-setting groups. Evaluate the current system of IM/AS oversight and priority-setting groups and committees to create a cohesive and effective structure that aligns with the overall IM/AS governance structure.


Administrative SystemsProject Intake and Review Process


Evaluate and revise the I-MAC proposal process to make it more streamlined and align it with the Washington State Department of Information Services (DIS) process. This includes streamlining and improving the intake process, reviewing the current 500-hour threshold to evaluate whether to raise it, reviewing the frequency of the proposal cycle and how to address emergent needs, and developing linkages to other IM/AS governance committees.

Develop a proposal review and governance process for smaller projects to include intake, review, and approvals and an appropriate governance structure.

Implement portfolio management to support and inform strategic goals and the project review and governance processes. The portfolio should include all IM/AS projects at the UW. Establish a Project Management Office to support the portfolio management process and implement project management best practices.

Staffing


Develop an IM/AS workforce management program in partnership with UW Technology HR that includes professional development, staff recruiting, retention and succession planning, and HR consulting.

Define clear roles and responsibilities for the dual-reporting, or “dotted line,” relationships between unit staff and the Office of Information Management.

Investment


The Vice Provost of Information Management/CIO should work with the Provost, Senior Vice President, and Vice Provost for Planning & Budgeting to devise a process for establishing a


Administrative Systemspredictable and sustainable funding model for IM/AS in conjunction with implementing the Roadmap.

Community and Partnership Development


Develop the services, processes, structures, administrative support, and technical architecture necessary to enable community-based projects and initiatives.

Roadmap Action PlanThe following section outlines an action plan for implementing the five Roadmap initiatives, including recommended sequencing and timing.

The charts in this section show a high-level view of proposed timelines and sequencing for each initiative and supporting projects. The timelines suggested are aggressive and assume that funding commitments have been secured. Additional discussion of timing is included later in this report. (See When and How Long? on page 34.)

This proposal covers a roughly ten-year period, with replacement of all three legacy systems completed in seven years, or by 2015. Under the proposal, work on Replace the Base would begin with the financial system replacement in 2008. Participation in the Kuali Foundation’s effort to develop a new student system would also begin in 2008, with work on actual system implementation starting in 2011. The HR/payroll system replacement project would begin in 2009.

The plan recommends beginning with financial system replacement because the project will involve critical decisions relating to organizational reporting structure and budgeting that ideally should precede the HR/payroll system replacement.

Another important reason to proceed with the financial system replacement first is that there is an opportunity to partner with the state of Washington, which is also considering replacing its legacy financial system. The state’s replacement project was a key recommendation to come out of its recent strategic plan for finance and administration. The UW is actively engaged in discussions about


Administrative Systemsthis possibility with the state, and with Washington State University, which is looking at replacing its legacy financial system.

In addition, the plan recommends participating in the Kuali Foundation student system development effort concurrently with the financial system replacement because there is a narrow window of opportunity to become involved in the project as a founding partner and influence system design. More information on the Kuali project is included in the section on UW Peers. (See Kuali Foundation Student System on page 32.)

The Replace the Base initiative chart follows the Washington State project management framework, which breaks projects into the following phases:

Initiation

Detailed planning

Execution

Each initiative includes detailed steps and phases that are not outlined in the charts.

Where possible, projects will be designed to deliver functionality to users incrementally, as that functionality is developed. In addition, every effort will be made to reduce the impact of project planning and implementation on key business partners through capacity planning to assess the demands that will be placed on technical and business staff and by providing backfill for those positions as necessary.


Administrative SystemsINFORMATION FOR DECISION MAKING

Continue to develop the common data definitions, tools, and infrastructure to enable access to accurate information for decision making and to support all core systems and development efforts across the UW community.

REPLACE THE BASE

Start the legacy system replacement projects with the financial systems replacement, followed by the HR/payroll replacement.

At the same time, become a partner in the Kuali student, a higher education consortium developing a next-generation student system. Enter the partnership in fiscal year 2008-2009 in order to gain the benefits of early involvement in the design, requirements, and development consortium.


Administrative Systems Implement all replacement system projects in multi-phase

releases.

REDESIGN PROCESSES

Have major process redesign efforts go hand-in-hand with system replacement projects.


Administrative SystemsENHANCE AND RENEW SYSTEMS

Have enhancements to core systems supporting research administration, facilities and space, and alumni/development occur in parallel with legacy system replacements.

Continue high-value interim upgrades to legacy systems to keep the systems current and functional until they are replaced.

Reassess and prioritize enhancement projects at least annually.


Administrative SystemsPRIORITIZE AND MAKE DECISIONS

Provide the governance framework necessary to support the other four initiatives, including prioritization, decision making, resource allocation, funding, and development of a collaborative partnership environment.

Replace the Base Alternatives and ApproachesImplementing the Roadmap, and in particular the Replace the Base initiative to replace the UW’s core legacy systems, will involve significant commitment and investment. To provide some context for the difficult decisions ahead, this section outlines the University’s possible system replacement options and discusses which ones have been selected by peer higher education institutions and by the state of Washington.

FOUR ALTERNATIVES

The UW has four options for replacing its core legacy systems:

Vendor solution. Select and acquire a commercial software package, with or without customization. This can be licensed and maintained in-house, or operated in a shared or hosted environment.


Administrative Systems Higher education consortium. Select an open

source/community source approach developed by a consortium of higher education institutions. In most cases this will require a smaller investment up front, but may require more internal development staff to enhance, support, and maintain the software than would be required with a vendor-supported system.

Business partnership. Join a co-development effort with a for-profit software, consulting, or integration company.

Homegrown. Develop a custom solution either in-house or by hiring contractors.

Recommended Approach

In keeping with the Guiding Principles established by the Information Management Advisory Committee, the UW recognizes that a single vendor or solution might not meet all of the needs of a complex institution. The UW therefore will evaluate the unique needs of each major business function and select the solution that best meets the needs of that area.

As part of the evaluation, the UW will take into consideration the effort and complexity of integrating and supporting multiple solutions and technologies. Assessing the ability of each system to integrate with other systems will also be a key component in the selection process.

In addition, the UW will select the solutions that provide the best balance of functionality, flexibility, long-term maintainability, and cost effectiveness. The UW will acquire commercial packages where cost effective solutions are available. The UW will seek partnerships with other agencies and institutions where possible, and proceed alone where its needs are unique.

The following table shows some possible solutions for replacing each of the legacy systems. Detailed scoping, feasibility, requirements, and selection projects are needed to determine the UW’s actual preferred options.

Business Area Possible Solutions

Financial, Budget, • Higher education consortium: Kuali



Business Area Possible Solutions

and Procurement • Vendor solution: SAP, Oracle, Banner

HR/Payroll• Vendor solution: SAP, Oracle,

Lawson, Banner

Student Administration

• Higher education consortium: Kuali• Vendor solution: Banner, Oracle

WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING

The following is a brief, high-level look at what system replacement alternatives have been selected by other higher education institutions and the state of Washington. This type of comparison can be useful in understanding the various approaches and their relative costs. Numbers included are only preliminary estimates from institutions’ Web sites, and should not be viewed as complete or final. They are being provided for context only. The charts below provide a quick overview of the systems of other peer institutions and the state of Washington; details are given in the sections that follow.

Systems used by other peer institutions:



Systems used by the state of Washington:

UW Peers


Administrative SystemsAn analysis of 30 of the UW’s peer institutions1 reveals that few have older systems than the University of Washington. In fact:

Only one out of 30 peer institutions has an older financial system than the UW.

Only two peers have an older student system.

Only four peers have an older HR/payroll system.

A majority of these institutions have replaced their legacy systems over the past ten years with large vendor solutions, or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, especially in the financial and HR/payroll areas. The two ERP systems selected most frequently are Oracle and Banner. Of the few homegrown systems remaining at the UW’s peer institutions, most were built before 1990.

The following table shows the approaches taken by the University of Washington’s three peer comparison groups: 1) Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) Peer Group; 2) Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) Peer Group; and 3) Global Challenge Peer State Institutions (state flagships with medical schools).

Administrative Systems Used by Peer 33 Universities Financi HR/ StudentHomegrown 19% 28% 42% Oracle ERP 44% 47% 19% Banner ERP 28% 13% 35% SAP ERP 3% 6% 0% Other vendor 6% 6% 3% Average year of ERP implementation

1998 2000 1994

Of the peer institutions that have ERPs in all three areas (finance, HR/payroll and student), seven use the same ERP in all the areas, and eight institutions employ a mix of ERPs. For example, the University of

1 This source of this data is the 2007 EDUCAUSE Fact Book augmented by information from other higher education sources. The analysis of more than 30 institutions included 24 from the Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board’s list of UW peers, 8 from the state of Washington Office of Financial Management list of UW peers, and 11 from the UW Global Challenge list of peers.


Administrative SystemsIllinois system replaced all three areas with Banner. The University of Minnesota replaced all three areas with Oracle.

Some universities that have been following a strategy similar to the UW’s of supporting and strengthening their legacy systems now seem to be considering ERPs. In 2006, UCLA’s strategic plan endorsed retaining and strengthening its legacy systems, but acknowledged that it must start to prepare for an eventual move to an ERP. The 2007-09 budget request included $700,000 for preparation planning.

Michigan State, the only university with an older financial system than the UW’s, authorized replacement of its legacy systems in 2006. The University selected Kuali financials and SAP for its HR/payroll system, according to its Web site. Target implementation date is 2009-2110. Michigan State was also one of the five institutions with an older HR/payroll system than the UW.

The Washington State University (WSU) strategic plan, updated February 2007, called for a review of alternatives for legacy system replacement, and development of a replacement/upgrade plan, including a timetable and funding strategy. WSU requested a scoping study to replace financial and student systems, estimating the implementation cost at around $60 million.

Higher Education Consortia

As an alternative to commercial ERPs, some universities are joining consortia to build administrative systems that are specifically designed for the higher education environment. The Kuali Foundation is an example.

The Kuali Foundation is a collaborative effort between numerous universities, including Indiana University, University of California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Michigan State University, which is creating a suite of open-source administrative systems to meet the needs of Carnegie Class institutions. Currently the foundation has four partnerships focused on developing systems in the following core areas: financial, research administration, student, and endowment management systems.

Kuali Foundation Student System

http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/


Administrative SystemsThe Roadmap strongly recommends that the University of Washington join the Kuali Foundation as a founding member and participate in the development of the Kuali student system. This is a unique opportunity for the UW to partner with other Tier 1 peer higher education institutions to develop the next-generation student system. Current founding partners include the University of British Columbia, University of California, Berkeley, University of Maryland (College Park), Florida State University, and the University of Southern California.

The UW’s current student administrative system is a 26-year-old homegrown legacy mainframe application that is inflexible and does not collect the information critical to effective operations and decision-making.

A next-generation student administrative system has the potential to substantially improve the educational quality and experience for UW students. The new system will provide better tracking of educational outcomes against expected performance, which will enable the UW to raise the bar on developing new educational programs and instruction methods. The UW’s current system does not have those capabilities.

Joining the Kuali Foundation now will give the UW a voice in deciding critical design issues so that the final product has a high probability of meeting UW needs. This early involvement also will enable the UW community to leverage the resources of partner institutions in redesigning student administrative processes to maximize efficiencies and flexibility.

State of Washington The state of Washington is following the trend of replacing legacy systems with ERP implementations. The state recently replaced its HR/payroll system with an SAP solution at a cost of $67 million. The state is now considering replacing its legacy financial and accounting system and is considering SAP as a possible solution. The need to replace its financial systems was a key recommendation of the state’s recent strategic plan for finance and administration, the “Roadmap for Washington State Financial and Administrative Policies, Processes and Systems.”

As part of this effort, the Washington State Office of Financial Management is currently engaging all state agencies, including higher


Administrative Systemseducation institutions, in projects to define common data and a new chart of accounts. The UW is participating in these activities.

In addition, the UW is actively engaged in conversations with the state and Washington State University to understand what each is planning in this area and to explore possible partnerships.

Continuing this active engagement will be important to ensure that the UW’s plans remain aligned with state efforts. Any large information management or administrative systems project that the UW undertakes will need to receive approval from the Washington State Department of Information Services, and in the case of financial systems, the Washington State Office of Financial Management.

State Resources:

Roadmap for Washington State Financial and Administrative Policies, Processes, and System is available at: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/roadmap/default.htm

The State Strategic IT Plan is available at: http://dis.wa.gov/news/publications/IT_Strategic_Plan_2008.pdf

WHEN AND HOW LONG?

A key question often asked is “When can the UW begin its system replacement projects and how long will they take?” The answer depends upon many internal and external variables, including:

How long it will take to secure funding and approvals from the state and others

Time needed to explore possible partnerships

The impact of competing priorities for funding at the UW and of any leadership or organizational changes

Institutional commitment and capacity

Vendor product releases

Length of time needed to recruit staff

https://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/index.html

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/roadmap/default.htm


Administrative Systems The impact of other major non-technology projects on needed

resources

This is a major undertaking that will require years of sustained institutional commitment to be successful.


Administrative SystemsThe timing also depends upon what approach, or combination of approaches, the UW chooses to take. Examples of alternative approaches are included in the following table.

Area Option 1 Option 2

Speed of implementation

Implement more quickly:

Implement with minimal customizations.

Minimize data conversion.

Defer enhanced reporting, portals, and interfaces.

Implement more slowly:

Allow time for change management and user training.

Include more user-friendly features.

Customize more to meet user needs.

Implementation releases

The “big bang” approach—implement for all users, all modules.

Implement in increments—for example, by module or by user group.

Timing and overlap of projects

Overlap major business systems projects: Work to replace finance, HR/payroll, student, etc., concurrently.

Focus on one business area at a time.


Administrative SystemsArea Option 1 Option 2

Project staffing Use system integration and consulting firms to staff the implementation projects, training internal staff to provide support and maintenance.

This generally will allow a faster implementation, but it likely will cost more.

Backfill internal staff (users and technical), train staff, and use consultant experts only where needed for knowledge transfer.

This generally will take longer, but it likely will cost less.

Each involves balancing project scope, schedule, and resources and evaluating the capacity of the institution to implement and manage change. Any adjustment to one of these variables impacts the other two.


Administrative SystemsThe Reality Triangle

In general, faster implementations are more expensive, more resource intensive, more disruptive, and involve higher risks. Slower implementations can be less costly, allow for more customization, training and knowledge transfer, and therefore are less disruptive and involve less risk. However, they take longer. These tradeoffs between scope, time, and resources are what John (Barry) Walsh of the University of Indiana Information Systems refers to as the “reality triangle.” Any impact in one area affects the other two.

The diagram below illustrates the idea that the three areas are interdependent.

ConclusionNEXT STEPS

The following next steps for implementing the Roadmap have been identified through discussions with the Information Management Advisory Committee, University Technology Advisory Committee, Board of Deans and Chancellors, and other key stakeholders:

Move forward with the financial system replacement. Begin work on a needs assessment and explore possible partnerships, including with the state, as well as other options.

Join the Kuali student partnership. Become a founding member of the Kuali Foundation student system development effort.


Administrative Systems Invest in high-value system enhancements as funding allows.

Identify a long-term funding strategy to implement the Roadmap initiatives. This includes identifying an annual operating and capital investment plan for information management and administrative systems.

WORKFORCE PLANNING

As the University moves forward with system replacement, it also will need to engage in thoughtful, long-term workforce planning for its technology staff. As new technologies are introduced and old ones decommissioned it will be critical to retain, reward, and retrain valued staff members and engage in succession planning to prepare for the upcoming wave of retirements.

In addition, it will be important to continue to focus on building an environment that encourages and rewards sharing, collaboration, and partnership within the UW and with external groups such as higher education consortia, state agencies, and business partners. New technologies will provide great opportunities for those who thrive in a community environment.

UPDATES TO THE ROADMAP

The Roadmap will be updated annually prior to the budgeting process. Projects and initiatives will be reassessed and prioritized in conjunction with the governance framework and the portfolio management process.

INVEST IN THE FUTURE

For the past two decades the University has made a strategic decision to invest its limited technology resources in research and other computing priorities. This approach has enabled the UW to build a technology infrastructure that has made this institution a global leader in technology and given it a competitive edge.

This strategy, however, has resulted in decades of underinvestment in information management and administrative systems. The UW’s aging


Administrative Systemsand functionally inadequate systems are now resulting in inefficiencies that are eroding the productivity of faculty, staff, and researchers at every level of the institution.

Up to this point, the UW has been able to maintain its core systems on a small and unpredictable budget. However, this funding model will not support the capital investments needed to move to a new generation of systems. A new funding model is needed to support baseline operations and maintenance, ongoing technology renewal, and major projects. A sustainable and predictable life cycle funding plan is needed to optimize decision making and ensure that investments in new systems are leveraged through the ongoing maintenance and technology renewal required to keep those systems current.

The University of Washington is a premier higher education institution that repeatedly is recognized as one of the best in the world. Yet its administrative systems are among the oldest and most archaic of its peers. These systems do not meet the University’s current business needs, and they cannot support its future aspirations.

The University does not need the world’s best payroll or accounts payable system. But it does need modern, flexible systems and accurate, timely information to support a complex, global enterprise. It is time for this institution to move from discussion to action—and makes the investments necessary to position the University of Washington for the future.


Administrative SystemsAPPENDICESThe report’s four appendices cover current staffing allocations for IM/AS, the history and context of UW IM/AS, a detailed discussion of the strategic roadmap project and report development, and a full list of contributors.

I. Current Staffing Allocations for Information Management and Administrative Systems

INTRODUCTION

This appendix shows current staffing levels for the development, maintenance, and support of UW information management and administrative systems and services managed by the Office of Information Management (OIM) and the supporting technical infrastructure managed by UW Technology.

OIM directs information management and administrative systems throughout the UW and is responsible for the development, maintenance, and support of central administrative applications and information management services. For more information about OIM see: http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/

UW Technology provides information technology, networking, and services to the UW community. UW Technology is responsible for the infrastructure that supports the UW’s central administrative applications. For more information about UW Technology see: http://www.washington.edu/uwtech/

http://dis.wa.gov/news/publications/IT_Strategic_Plan_2008.pdf

http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/


Administrative SystemsSTAFFING SUPPORT FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS

Staff Allocation by Activity TypeOIM staff support for information management and administrative systems (IM/AS) is allocated among the following three activities:

Production Support refers to work that keeps the systems running on a daily basis, including response to time-critical issues such as program logic errors and data exceptions. Production support staff deals with issues as they arise to keep the systems running correctly.

Maintenance includes projects that adapt the system to changes in business rules and to new externally or internally mandated requirements. It also includes projects that implement process improvements, keep the systems technically current, and fix non-critical bugs.

Development includes activities that extend existing processes, add new functionality, or convert existing processes to new technology.

The following chart shows how staff time is allocated between production support, maintenance, and development activities.

Staff Allocation by Activity Type(94.5 FTE)

1

2

3

Prod Support 45.6 FTEMaintenance 20.7 FTEDevelopment 28.2 FTE


Administrative SystemsOverview of Functional AreasAs of September 2008, the Office of Information Management employs 94.5 staff in direct support of UW information management and administrative systems in the following functional areas:

Information Management o Application Integration Serviceso Decision Support Services

Administrative Systems o Finance o Student o Human Resources/Payrollo Alumni/Developmento University Services o Application Processing and Coordination

Project Supporto Project Services o Portfolio Management

The following chart shows how staffing resources are allocated among the functional areas. The Administrative Systems area includes strategic projects such as the Financial Desktop Initiative (FDI) and Electronic Faculty Effort and Cost Sharing (eFECS). The Project Support area is comprised of project services staff, including those that provide portfolio management support and services such as usability, technical documentation, and project support.



Information Management:

Application Integration Services 7 FTE

Decision Support Services 7 FTE

Administrative Systems:

Finance 27 FTE

Student 14.8 FTE

HR/Payroll 13.4 FTE

University Services 7.5 FTE

App Processing and Coord 5 FTE

Alumni/Development 4 FTE

Project Support:

Project Services 7 FTE

Portfolio Management 1.8 FTE

Information Management:

Project Support:

Administrative Systems:(Includes Strategic Projects):

Staff Allocation by Functional Area(94.5 FTE)

Staff Allocation by Functional Area The following section provides more detail on OIM staffing allocations for each functional area.



Information Management Functional Areas

Application Integration ServicesApplication Integration Services provides consistent and integrated data across subject areas and spanning the life cycle of activities. It also provides support for distributed application development using service oriented techniques.

Application Integration Services Staffing(7 FTE)

Prod Support 0.7 FTE

Maintenance 0.8 FTE

Development 5.5 FTE

Decision Support ServicesDecision Support Services provides development and support for the Enterprise Data Warehouse and business intelligence and analytical tools for timely access to data for decision making.

Decision Support Services Staffing(7 FTE)


Maintenance 1.0 FTE

Development 4.8 FTE



Administrative Systems Functional Areas

Finance SystemsThe finance systems include central financial accounting, budgeting, procurement, and payables. These systems are driven by transaction input from business users across the University. On average, 200,000 transactions are accepted each month from business users. An additional 300,000 are accepted from central office staff and other interfacing systems. This base of 500,000 transactions is “exploded” into an average of 2.2 million records each month (i.e., for each single-entry transaction, the system might generate numerous “back-side” transactions). In addition, transaction numbers climb even higher during peaks in processing that occur during fiscal closing, salary revisions, and other high-demand periods. The procurement systems support requisitions and payment for goods and services totaling over $1.1 billion per year. The JDE Grants Receivables system takes in $1.1 billion per year from grant sponsors.

UW users access financial transaction data and reports through the Web-based My Financial Desktop application.

Finance Systems Staffing ( 27 FTE)


Maintenance 5.1 FTE

Development 8.3 FTE (Includes FDI and eFECS)

Student SystemsThe student systems support core student administrative functions such as admissions, registration, permanent records, financial aid, and tuition collection, as well as many ancillary functions. The student systems retain the official academic records for 761,000 UW students


Administrative Systems—every student who has attended the UW since 1981. The Web-based student registration system handles over 500 transactions each minute during peak registration periods. The student systems generally account for 60 to 75 percent of the total daily load of 200,000 to 900,000 transactions on the administrative mainframe.

Student Systems Staffing(14.8 FTE)


Maintenance 5.2 FTE

Development 1.3 FTE

HR/Payroll Systems In a typical two-week payroll cycle, The HR/payroll systems distribute $60 million in pay to the University’s 35,000 employees. The HR/payroll systems pay out $1.6 billion annually, 85 percent to direct deposit, and distribute 50,000 W-2's each year.

HR/Payroll Systems Staffing(13.4 FTE)


Maintenance 3.8 FTE

Development 0.6 FTE


Administrative SystemsUniversity ServicesThe University Services functional area includes the administrative systems used by Facilities Services, Transportation, Environmental Health and Safety, UW Technology, and other units.

University Services Staffing(7.5 FTE)


Maintenance 3.3 FTE

Development 1.2 FTE

Applications Processing and CoordinationThe Applications Processing and Coordination functional area supports batch processing and report production for all of the administrative systems supported.

Application Processing and Coordination(5 FTE)

Prod Support 5 FTEMaintenance 0 FTEDevelopment 0 FTE


Administrative SystemsAlumni/Development System The alumni/development system supports the computing needs of University Advancement through the SunGard BSR Advance system. It also supports a locally-developed reporting application and customized interfaces to other UW administrative systems. The alumni/development system processed 110,000 gifts in the last two weeks of “Campaign UW: Creating Futures” and recorded a total of $2.68 billion in donations during the eight-year campaign.

Alumni/Development System Staffing(4 FTE)

Prod Support 3 FTE

Maintenance 1 FTE

Development 0 FTE

Project Services Functional Areas

Project ServicesProject Services provides project management, quality assurance, technical writing, and usability services for enterprise-wide projects. Staffing for the strategic projects such as FDI and eFECS are accounted for in the Administrative Systems Functional Area.


Administrative SystemsProject Services Staffing

(7 FTE)


Maintenance 0.5 FTE

Development 5.5 FTE

Portfolio ManagementPortfolio Management includes support for project intake, oversight, and prioritization that achieves the right mix of tactical and strategic projects for the UW.

Portfolio Management Staffing(1.8 FTE)

Prod Support .8 FTEMaintenance 0 FTEDevelopment 1 FTE

STAFFING SUPPORT FOR TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

UW Technology employs 23.8 staff members to support the technical infrastructure for the University’s administrative systems and information management services. This infrastructure includes:

Servers, storage, and other hardware Operating systems including Microsoft Windows, Server, UNIX,

and Unisys Clearpath MCP Database management systems including Microsoft SQL Server,

Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and Unisys DMSII Application, management, and monitoring tools


Administrative SystemsThe infrastructure staff provides the following support:

Application support and engineering—focusing primarily on the Windows environment, providing in-depth consulting expertise in new and emerging aspects of this environment, as well as support for integrating best-of-breed packages such as Ariba and JD Edwards.

Database administration—supporting the design, implementation, and operation of database environments across multiple server platforms.

Windows/UNIX infrastructure—involving the specification, installation, and configuration of 100 Windows and 30 IBM AIX servers, as well as monitoring and ongoing support. This area also supports the enterprise backup software used for the Windows and UNIX servers and manages disk storage.

MCP infrastructure—involving the configuration, monitoring, and ongoing support of the mainframe systems that service numerous core administrative applications. This area also serves as a technical consulting resource for the mainframe environment and supports environmental and operational software such as job scheduling and tape management.

Identity and Access Management—critical to ensuring easy and convenient access to Web-based resources and services and a consistent user experience. It provides the infrastructure necessary to enable use of a single user identification and password to log on to most systems, access to appropriate resources, and support for portal services that tailor content to each individual user.

Outreach—ensures that UW Technology engineering services and expertise are successfully applied in support of the University of Washington's mission. Helps to establish and build collaborative relationships with customers, vendors, administrators, and other technical units.

MyUW Portal—a portal for accessing a wide variety of UW information and services, including student and employee personal information. MyUW provides access to specially tailored Web resources based on roles at the University and personal preferences.



The following chart shows how the infrastructure support staff currently is allocated.

Windows/Unix

MCP Eng (mainframe) Database Services

Identity/Access Mgmt

Storage Services MyUW Portal

Outreach

Application Engineering

Technical Infrastructure Support Staffing (UW Technology)

(23.8 FTE)

Windows/Unix 7.0 FTE

MCP Eng (mainframe) 4.5 FTE

Database Services 4.25 FTE

Identity/Access Mgmt 4 FTE

Storage Services 1.75 FTE

MyUW Portal 1.2 FTE

Outreach 1.0 FTE

Application Engineering 0.1 FTE



II. History and Context of UW Information Management and Administrative Systems

PRIOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS STRATEGY

The University of Washington’s previous strategy for administrative systems and information management evolved through a series of institutional decisions made over the past 30 years.

A key decision was to channel limited resources towards technology that supports research and other computing priorities. This strategy enabled the UW to become a recognized technology leader and gave it a competitive edge in discovery and learning.

However, the strategy has resulted in decades of underinvestment in administrative systems and information management. In order to maximize the limited funding available, the University’s strategy for its administrative systems was to incrementally renew and extend its existing systems.

While the University has been able to sustain its systems with minimal investment for many years, the core systems are now decades old and no longer support its current business needs. Efforts to enhance and extend these systems have gone as far as they can go.

The University’s previous strategy is outlined in the “Strategic Choices for Administrative Computing” document, dated April 2003. See: http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/choices/

The strategy called for:

Modernizing and extending core legacy systems (HR/payroll, finance, student)

Transforming business practices to improve how people do their work

mailto:[email protected]


Administrative Systems Investing in best of breed systems for specific functional areas

(build or buy)

Providing access to information using data warehouse approaches

Developing and integrating middleware that is critical to creating a user-friendly, Web-based experience, including personalization (MyUW), authentication (UW NetID), and authorization (ASTRA)

The strategy also entailed incrementally implementing the vision outlined in the “UW Information Services Strategy.” See: http://www.washington.edu/computing/directions/iss.html

The vision was to deliver a rich array of resources to the University community anytime and anywhere via a Web portal that provided a customized view for each individual, based on that person’s roles and responsibilities.

More history of administrative computing is included in the Strategic Choices document Appendix IV: History and Context of Administrative Computing at the University of Washington. See: http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/choices/AppendixIV.history.4.29.pdf

IS FUTURES TASK FORCE

In March 2006, Provost Phyllis Wise created the Future of Information Systems (IS Futures) Task Force to take a comprehensive, five-to-10-year view of information technology needs and strategies for addressing them. The committee gathered data from faculty, staff, and students; interviewed stakeholders on institutional trends and future IT needs; convened panels of business leaders and IT specialists from other universities; surveyed other universities on best practices; and did other research.

The task force’s January 19, 2007 Future of Information Systems Task Force Final Report identified the following key challenges:

http://www.kuali.org/

http://www.kuali.org/

http://www.washington.edu/computing/directions/iss.html


Administrative Systems The UW’s current information technology (IT) structure is

fragmented, with responsibilities, decision making, and accountability spread across many different units.

The UW currently lacks a clear vision or institutional strategy for information technology. There is no institutional context for prioritizing projects or allocating resources and no framework for understanding how individual projects fit into a long-term strategy.

IT funding is inconsistent, allocated in a piecemeal fashion, and inequitable.

Analytic data is lacking or difficult to acquire. Data storage and management is not unified or coordinated.

To compensate for missing functionality in core administrative systems, UW staff are engaged in daily heroics, cobbling together time-consuming workarounds.

To address these challenges, the report recommended that the UW consider creating an Office of Information Management to be responsible for information management and administrative systems and coordinate the integration of information systems and services throughout the UW. Other key recommendations included:

Be proactive in creating and maintaining information and technology systems that support goals and core functions.

Allocate baseline biennial funding for technology in all of the core areas: Academics, research, administration, and medicine.

Allocate consistent funding to maintain and support a baseline and ensure a competitive advantage through information systems in designated priority areas.

For more information about the IS Futures Task Force findings and recommendations, and to read the final task force report, see the task force Web site. See:http://depts.washington.edu/isfuture/index.shtml

OFFICE OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

In response to the IS Futures Task Force recommendations and input from deans and other key stakeholders, the Provost and the Vice

http://depts.washington.edu/isfuture/index.shtml


Administrative SystemsPresident for UW Technology created a new Office of Information Management (OIM) in November 2006.

The office was created to achieve: Direct alignment of authority over functional organization

business practices, policy, resources, and priorities with the UW’s core information management and information systems resources and capabilities

The powerful alignment of information systems and information management staff and services across the University

Far greater coordination of resources, priorities, and directions across UW units

A true information management approach that supports the University’s growing need for information for strategic directions and daily operations

Better and more powerful teamwork across UW units A holistic and collaborative approach to building the future of the

UW’s information management and information systems A strong UW focus on and priority for information systems and

information management

OIM is headed by the Vice Provost for Information Management/Chief Information Officer, who reports to the Provost. The VP-IM/CIO directs information management and administrative systems across the UW and provides leadership in development and management of systems and applications.

The following units were merged to create OIM: Administrative Information Services (AIS), from UW Technology The Strategic Initiatives Office (SIO), from the Office of the

Executive Vice PresidentFor more information about OIM, see http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/

In addition, to ensure coordination of information management and administrative systems throughout the UW, the following dual reporting relationships were created:

Information systems teams/people throughout the Office of the Provost have a dual reporting relationship to the VP-IM/CIO and their own vice provost.

http://www.washington.edu/uwtech/


Administrative Systems College and school-level information systems and information

management teams have a dual reporting relationship to the VP-IM/CIO and their deans/chancellors.

One of the key initial charges to OIM was to gather input from key stakeholders across the University on current challenges with the UW’s information management and administrative systems. OIM conducted a discovery/assessment process in spring 2007, interviewing deans, vice provosts, vice presidents, computing directors, administrators, and other key stakeholders.

More than 700 comments were collected from these meetings and organized into four broad themes. A summary of the input collected is available in the “Emerging Themes from Discovery/Assessment Meetings” document, on OIM’s Web site. See:http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/EmergingThemes_May2007.pdf

Another key charge, which came in response to input from the Board of Deans, the Information Management Advisory Committee, and other key stakeholders, was for OIM to initiate a comprehensive strategic planning effort for information management and administrative systems. The result of that work is the UW Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap). (Development of the Roadmap is described further in Appendix III.)

https://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/current/

https://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/current/


Administrative SystemsIII. The Strategic Roadmap Project:

Developing the Roadmap PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The objective of the University of Washington Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap) project was to define a vision for the future of information management and administrative systems (IM/AS) at the University of Washington, aligned with the institution’s business goals and priorities, and to develop an action plan for achieving this vision. The Roadmap was created to be the UW’s strategic plan for IM/AS.The Roadmap was initiated in the fall of 2007 in response to the IS Futures Task force and at the request of the Board of Deans and Chancellors, Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC), and other key stakeholders. The Roadmap was designed by business owners in collaboration with the Office of Information Management (OIM) and its constituent stakeholders. The Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC) served as the project’s steering committee. Executive sponsors included Provost Phyllis Wise and Vice President for UW Technology Ron Johnson. OIM will implement and maintain the plan, under the oversight of the I-MAC. The scope of the Roadmap was to focus on institution-wide information management and administrative systems. The Roadmap was organized around the following key areas: Governance and Partnership, including:

Leadership, alignment, and strategic partnerships Prioritization and governance Guiding principles Ongoing planning process

Information Management, including

Data access Common definitions Security


Administrative Systems Common solutions, support for specialized needs Integration Leveraging distributed knowledge and expertise

Administrative Systems, including

Business process improvement Core systems modernization:

o Finance, procurement, budget o HR/payroll o Student and academic administration, including course

management o Research administration o Facilities and space o Alumni/development

The scope of the Roadmap project did not include:

Technical infrastructure, security middleware, desktop tools, digital libraries, or collaboration tools. These areas will be coordinated with the UW Technology strategic planning initiatives, along with overlapping areas such as the MyUW portal.

Academic teaching and learning tools, which are planned and supported by UW Technology.

Applications specific to individual departments such as medical center billing and clinical systems, and athletic ticketing systems.

Funding solutions.


Administrative SystemsPROJECT APPROACH

The following diagram provides a high-level overview of the timing and major phases of the Roadmap project, followed by an overview of the key activities in each phase:

Project Planning

Develop the project approach, organizational and decision making structure, communication plan, team members, issue resolution structure, and meeting plans

Design template deliverables for the task groups

Perform Discovery

Conduct interviews with key stakeholders Document and organize results, identify broad themes Identify and document institutional business goals and priorities


Administrative SystemsDocument Current State

Review and summarize the inventory of current systems (including technology used, number of users, age, and a stability assessment)

Review and summarize projects in progress or projects previously submitted for funding and approval

Identify resources required to support the current environment Identify key business processes Summarize relevant data from previous studies including

discovery/assessment meetings, the IS Futures Task Force findings, and other relevant recent studies

Conduct additional interviews and work sessions as needed Develop a current-state assessment for each task group area

including an analysis of what is working and of risks, challenges, and opportunities

Research Trends

Summarize previous related UW research, plans, and studies Research what other comparable institutions and the state of

Washington are doing in areas such as:

o Information managemento Administrative systemso Governanceo Guiding principles

Research technical trends and the state of the application software industry for higher education

Research best practices and examples from third-party research organizations

Summarize the analysis of trends and research

Define the Vision

Develop guiding principles


Administrative Systems Work in task groups to define the vision for individual areas;

coordinated across teams for consistency of vision; engaged task group sponsors, deans, and other advisory groups in vision discussions

Document the vision

Analyze the Gap

Compare the current-state assessment to the desired state as defined in the vision and analyze the gap between the two.

Develop Action Plan

Define long-term priorities and initiatives Define preferred sequencing based on priorities, dependencies,

capacity, readiness, and risk Define short-term and interim solutions for each area based on

overall calendar and sequencing Develop a sequenced roadmap to achieve the vision Define a governance and responsibility model Develop an ongoing, repeatable planning process

PROJECT STRUCTURE

The Roadmap project engaged more than 170 stakeholders representing schools, colleges, campuses, medical centers, deans, faculty, centralized support functions, administrative staff, and technology managers.Working teams of participants were divided into nine task groups focused on specific areas: Administrative Systems, including facilities/space, finance/budget/procurement, HR/payroll, student administration, research administration, and alumni/development; Information Management, including decision support and integration/infrastructure, and Governance. Task groups were led by respected business leaders with guidance from sponsors. Each task group comprised10-20 team members plus a support team of staff and facilitators. (For a list of participants please see Appendix IV.)


Administrative SystemsTask group work was overseen by a Roadmap Working Team comprised of business leaders representing all major areas of the institution, including the leads of each task group. The Roadmap Working Team took the work of the task groups, integrated their findings and conclusions, and established overall priorities based on benefits, risks, and support for the institutional goals. The work was also reviewed by the Information Management and Administrative Systems Technology Advisory Group (IM/AS TAG), comprised of senior technology leaders from OIM, UW Technology, schools, and campuses. The IM/AS TAG provided technical review and input into the process and the recommendations.The recommendations from the Roadmap Working Team were presented for review and approval to the Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC), in its role as project steering committee. The following diagram shows how the Roadmap project was organized.

Further details on the objectives, scope, approach, organization, and roles is provided in the Project Charter document which is available on the Roadmap Web site. See: http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/

http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/


Administrative SystemsPROJECT PHASE RESULTS

Discovery Process

The first step in the Roadmap effort was to gather input from key stakeholders across the University community on key challenges in UW information management and administrative systems. Deans, administrators, computing directors, vice provosts, vice presidents, and other key stakeholders were interviewed during the winter/spring of 2007 as part of this discovery/assessment effort. More than 700 comments were collected and divided into four broad themes. Those themes are summarized below. A complete list of themes and of groups interviewed is available on the OIM Web site. See http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/EmergingThemes_May2007.pdf

Summary of Themes

Strategy, Policy, and PartnershipMoving forward will take strong leadership. There is agreement that 80 percent of business processes could share a common solution while still allowing for specialized, local needs. Addressing major challenges will require additional resources. The UW needs to clarify the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of its IT governance structure, including the various IT and priority-setting groups.

Comments from stakeholders:“UW needs to manage itself as a ‘whole’ institution.”

“Everyone is doing the same work in each school, which is not a smart use of resources; we'd rather spend time doing things that truly are unique to our own school.”

“Have a central place to identify which schools are doing work-arounds; identify commonalities and reduce duplicative work.”

Information ManagementOperational and strategic decision-making relies on accurate and consistent institutional data. The ability to track money, people, and space across the entire information life cycle is critical. The UW needs broader, timelier access to data and analytical tools and consistent, accurate data. Data needs to be integrated across all subject areas and span the life cycle of activities.




Administrative SystemsComments from stakeholders:

“It is not clear whether the data we get is accurate. If we ask two different people, we may get two different answers.”

“We need analytical data. We need the ability to see a broad ‘dashboard’ view of the data and the ability to manipulate the data to see both transaction and summary levels. This will enable us to tell customers where their money goes.”

“It can be difficult to know which questions to ask because a term (e.g., ‘faculty’) may have a different meaning to different people. It shouldn't vary across units.”

Business Processes and Information SystemsOur core central systems (financial, HR/payroll, and student) do not meet institutional needs and need to be replaced. Daily heroics, shadow systems, and other workarounds lead to inefficiencies and loss of productivity. Business units need to start working collaboratively to identify ways to streamline business processes and create consistencies across the University.

Comments from stakeholders:“We need to reassess our existing business processes in light of new technology.”

“Weigh the need to have flexibility versus having a consistent process across campus.”

“We need to replace our core legacy systems ‘cold turkey’ and invest in a new system. We can no longer afford to keep prolonging them. It seems that too many resources are tied up in maintenance for these antiquated systems.”

Information ArchitectureThe University needs to build a developer community to leverage technical knowledge and expertise across units. In addition, a distributed development environment will enable access to central services while supporting local development to meet specialized needs. As new systems and information architectures are developed, security must remain a top priority.

Comments from stakeholders:“We need to standardize the programming language and a standard skill set for programmers, etc. Different units are building systems in different languages, which has lead to a proliferation of shadow systems. These skill sets are not necessarily portable across UW.”

“We need a 'continuous improvement' approach so we are always keeping up with new technologies and ensuring the system is viable for years to come.”


Administrative Systems“We've created so many systems to support various administrative functions— they all work— but they are not connected in any way.”

Current State Assessment

Each of the nine Strategic Roadmap task groups conducted an in-depth evaluation of the current state of IM/AS from their area’s perspective. Each group assessed what is working well today and evaluated potential risks and challenges with the existing systems. The groups also examined business and technical trends and best practices. The outcome was a current state assessment for each area, which are summarized below. Detailed summaries and the complete current state documents are available on the Web. See: https://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/current/

Summary of Current State Findings

Information Management

Managing information is key to decision-making and administering day-to-day business activities at the UW. Information Management (IM) provides technology and infrastructure to support the management of information, including data and services.

Data Access, Data Integration. Information is trapped in central systems. It is difficult to obtain permission to access central data stores, and the access usually is platform-centric. Once obtained, the data is not well-understood, generally not scalable, and not integrated with information from other applications.

To compensate for these deficiencies, local shadow systems store redundant, inconsistent, and sensitive data. Business owners rely on this data to make decisions, but they question its accuracy. In addition, the number of shadow systems raises concerns about data security and privacy.

Innovation and Business Agility. Our central infrastructure is seen as holding back innovation. We are unable to keep up with changing business needs due to the complexity of our technology. We have many technical and business people who are resistant to change. We are a large, decentralized institution and yet we do not provide the kind of central infrastructure that enables change at the edges.

http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/choices/AppendixIV.history.4.29.pdf


Administrative SystemsOur culture is evolving to embrace change. There are many people who want change and will help to make it happen. Newer technologies and techniques do exist that can dramatically increase agility and foster innovation.

Collaboration. There has been a lack of collaboration between central and departmental information technology and information management. Without knowing what others are working on or what already is available, we pour time and effort into re-inventing the wheel. We are beginning to see improvements. The USER (University Services Renewal) methodology has involved business users in project development. OIM has created a new Community and Partnership Development division to identify partnership opportunities, common resources, and existing solutions to support information systems and projects. RESTful Web-service architecture and Resource Oriented Architecture (ROA) encourage collaboration and interoperability between systems in disparate environments.

Technical Complexity and Maintainability. We are overwhelmed by the complexity of the technical environment. Understanding the effects of even small changes is becoming inordinately difficult. Old technologies aren’t phased out fast enough, making our systems more and more challenging to maintain.

Creating an information architecture that stores our information in the proper places and makes it easy for users to find and understand it is the key to realizing the full potential of our information assets.


The UW has been incrementally investing in its administrative systems, particularly through the USER Project. USER projects such as the Online Payroll Update System, Employee Self Service, Financial Desktop Initiative, Online Work/Leave System, and others have provided user-friendly functionality missing from the core systems that has improved productivity for scores of UW faculty, staff, and students. The UW has also incrementally invested in the Enterprise Data Warehouse, which is making progress towards providing access to data for decision making.

More recently, the Technology Advisory Committees and other decision-making groups have made a positive start towards project


Administrative Systemsprioritization and portfolio management to help ensure that the UW is working on the right projects. The UW has been investing in projects recommended by the Information Management Advisory Committee. In addition, Alumni Advancement, Facility Services, and Research Administration are upgrading their major systems.

Challenges

The UW’s legacy systems are nearing the end of their lifespan. They were designed for an academic climate and funding model that no longer exists. Yesterday’s rigid technical environment isn’t flexible enough to adapt to today’s changing and expanding business model. This gap has led to missing both functionality and key data.

Our budget system doesn’t meet current objectives of resource planning and allocation. Major functionality is missing in our receivables, capitalization, and financial reporting systems. Accrual accounting is neither timely nor available at the department level. There is no central tool for forecasting and planning. The UW’s payroll system does not meet current payroll business rules. We do not have a human resources system.

Missing central data has led to a proliferation of shadow systems and lack of integration. Units across the UW are duplicating processes and data, which results in inefficient use of staff time and is a data security risk. There are no institutional data definitions to ensure a common understanding of data being used. There are a growing number of requests for reporting information at the enterprise level, but the UW’s stand-alone systems do not allow the integration necessary to answer many questions. Security access policies are inconsistent and not well understood.

Governance Current State

There are more than 20 committees focused on IM/AS prioritization and decision making, but they operate independently and inconsistently and without clear decision making pathways and authority. Roles and responsibilities are not well defined, not all IM/AS areas are covered, and membership is not always representational, as it tends to be weighted toward central administration. There is no strategic framework to guide decision making. While the Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC) does provide a formalized


Administrative Systemsprocess for approving and prioritizing enterprise level IM/AS projects, the intake and prioritization processes are viewed as cumbersome.

Portfolio management is the process by which investment decisions are made to maximize value and align work with strategic goals. It includes selecting, prioritizing, and monitoring results across an enterprise. Portfolio management is practiced in few areas. There is no enterprise portfolio management strategy for all IM/AS projects and applications; however, it is recognized that portfolio management could provide a prioritization framework. In addition, this portfolio management strategy needs to be supported by a Project Management Office that can track and monitor the portfolio and provide portfolio analysis as well as project planning, oversight, and best practices.

There is widespread recognition of the value of cross-unit collaboration on project work, but no frameworks exist to allow units to develop collaborative proposals, share resources, and establish working partnerships around IM/AS projects.

Investment in IM/AS has been relatively minimal and the funding year to year has been unpredictable. Investments often are made reactively and in a piecemeal fashion, with compliance risk being a major decider, as opposed to investing in projects that align with the University’s strategic direction.

Funding for IM/AS

In the last decade the University has channeled much of its limited resources towards technology infrastructure and investments that support research and learning. As a consequence, the UW’s infrastructure is excellent, and we have kept our competitive edge in research, as evidenced by the UW continuing to be the top public university in federal research funding since 1974.

At the same time, there has been a history of underinvestment in information management and administrative systems. Operational (base) support for the administrative systems is at the bare minimum to keep the systems going, and funding for enhancement projects and new systems has been small and unpredictable.

In the last ten years the USER Initiative provided about $20 million for HR/Payroll, Financial Desktop, and SAGE (research administration)


Administrative Systemsprojects. In the three years of its existence, the I-MAC proposal process has allocated about $12.5 million to projects. I-MAC has tended to recommend projects that address a compliance gap, and over half of its total funding allocation has been for research administrative systems.

Vision

Each Task Group worked with its sponsors to define a vision for its area. The following is a summary.

Administrative Systems Vision

The UW’s administrative systems will fully support this institution’s complex and evolving business needs, improving the productivity and efficiency of people at every level of the institution. The systems will provide the full range of functionality required to meet most of the needs of units and departments, significantly reducing the need for shadow systems to compensate for inadequate functionality. The systems will be flexible and agile enough to keep up with the UW’s changing business needs.

Within 10 years the UW will have …

Replaced its aging legacy systems to:

Meet user needs for transactional efficiency and management information

Reduce the risk of unsupportable and inflexible systems Improve integration across systems Improve consistency in the user experience Provide agility to support future needs Improve asset control Support a new chart of accounts and reporting structure Support comprehensive planning, allocation, and

reporting, forecasting, and indirect-cost recovery


Administrative Systems Provide the ability to track data centrally through its life

cycle in areas such as employee records, faculty history, student activities, financial transactions, and research

Allow departments and units to easily extend core data to meet their unique needs

Improved business processes to:

Leverage new technologies Eliminate redundant and inefficient processes Document and share best practices in order to realize the

greatest efficiencies and maximize effectiveness Integrate workflow management to efficiently coordinate

work across units Save resources and optimize use of our limited resources Guide faculty, researchers, and staff through compliance

and administrative processes Develop feedback and quality assurance solutions that

continuously improve our business processes Foster a culture of open communication and collaboration

between departmental and central IT and between business owners and developers

Information Management Vision

The UW will provide access to accurate information to support effective decision-making and advance the University’s strategic goals. A full suite of scalable and robust information delivery tools will be provided that supports on-demand and real-time access to data and enables users to easily search, find, develop, and run reports.

The UW will develop common infrastructure, architecture, and support services necessary to integrate and streamline departmental and institutional information and processes. Data management and integration will provide a streamlined data management environment that integrates data across the University. The UW will develop a comprehensive and trusted enterprise data warehouse recording the life cycle of data across all major business areas. The UW will develop


Administrative Systemsthe technology environment necessary to enable collaborative development across UW departments and units.

Within 10 years the UW will have …

Developed data structures and analytical tools to:

Provide a comprehensive and trusted enterprise data warehouse recording the life cycle of data across all major business areas

Provide timely, accurate, and integrated data, with appropriate privacy protection

Support effective decision-making and advance the University’s strategic goals

Support effective planning, measurement, and cost recovery

Developed an information architecture to:

Provide secure and reliable infrastructure and services Provide technologies that are integrated, open,

personalized, consistent, and responsive to the needs of the University community. The UW has the right technology to allow its diverse user community to easily search, find, develop, and run reports.

Provide transparent, agile, and open standards-based access to everything digital, anywhere, anytime, with any device. The UW’s next-generation technology environment will be flexible, scalable, and easy to maintain and update. It will be designed and developed with appropriate fault tolerance and cost efficiencies in mind and will strike a balance between in-house and outsourced solutions to meet all user needs.

Provide middleware services that advance a standard development process to make common functionality simple, reliable, and reusable


Administrative Systems Provide an environment that ensures security and privacy

with clearly defined policies and procedures around access, use, and retention of data

Protect institutional data from loss or destruction Provide a bridge between business processes and

underlying technology

Developed standards, best practices, and a collaborative environment to:

Support an active, highly-trained user community that exchanges ideas, analysis, and knowledge

Empower innovation at the edges and promote loosely-coupled integration between central and departmental systems

Implemented a rational strategy for system retirement and continual improvement to:

Improve system maintainability Reduce technical complexity Support business agility

Governance

The University will evolve a transparent, well understood governance framework that enables a cohesive, coordinated, and collaborative approach to decision making. This framework will ensure the involvement of key stakeholders, promote consistency across IM/AS projects, and enable holistic decision making.

The UW will have a mature, open, and transparent portfolio management framework that includes projects, applications, and human resources. It will balance cost, scope, and risks across the enterprise, align resources and projects with the UW’s strategic priorities, and include both central and local resources and projects of all scopes. It will be supported by a Project Management Office that provides portfolio analysis, project planning and oversight, and implements project management best practices.


Administrative SystemsAn ongoing strategic planning process will continuously evaluate and update the Roadmap to reflect changes in technology and in the University’s goals and priorities.

There is effective human resources management for IM/AS staffing that will provide effective workforce management, professional development, and succession strategies; better management of recruitment and retention; and clear roles and responsibilities across unit IM/AS staff regarding their partnerships with OIM and each other.

The UW will have developed the services, processes, structures, administrative support, and technical architecture necessary to enable community-based projects and initiatives.

The UW will have evolved and maintained a predictable, sustainable investment model that supports innovation, maintenance, and renewal, advances the goals of the Roadmap, and enables the University to fully support its business needs.

INITIATIVES AND ACTION PLAN

The final step in the Roadmap project was to develop recommended initiatives and an action plan outlining timing and sequencing. The task groups fleshed out recommended initiatives and timelines for each of their areas. The Roadmap Working Team then integrated and prioritized that work, and it produced the five recommended initiatives and action plan as presented in the Roadmap report.

A draft of the recommended initiatives and action plan was then presented in spring 2008 to the Information Management Advisory Committee, the University Technology Advisory Committee, the Board of Deans and Chancellors, and other key stakeholders. Through those discussions, the following near-term priorities were identified:

Move forward with the financial system replacement. Begin work on a needs assessment and explore possible partnerships, including with the state, as well as other options.

Join the Kuali Student partnership. Become a founding member of the Kuali Foundation student system development effort.


Administrative Systems Invest in high-value system enhancements as funding allows.

Identify a long-term funding strategy to implement the Roadmap initiatives. This includes identifying an annual operating and capital investment plan for information management and administrative systems.


Administrative SystemsIV. ContributorsExecutive Sponsors

Phyllis Wise, Provost and Executive Vice President Ron Johnson, Chief Technology Officer

Sponsor Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Officer, Office

of Information Management

Steering Committee (Information Management Advisory Committee)

V'Ella Warren, I-MAC Chair, Senior Vice President, Finance and Facilities

Harry Bruce, Dean, The Information School Marilyn Cox, Vice Chancellor, Administration & Planning, UW

Bothell Walter Dryfoos, Associate Vice President, Advancement

Services, University Advancement James Fine, Chief Information Officer, UW Medicine Information

Technology Services Eric Godfrey, Vice Provost, Student Life Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Officer, Office

of Information Management Gary Quarfoth, Associate Vice Provost, Office of Planning and

Budgeting Ronald Johnson, Chief Technology Officer Richard Karpen, Divisional Dean of Research and

Infrastructure, College of Arts & Sciences Edward Lazowska, Bill and Melinda Gates Chair, Computer

Science & Engineering Ruth Mahan, Vice Dean for Administration and Finance, UW

Medicine Arthur Nowell, Dean, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences Patrick Pow, Director, Information Technology, UW Tacoma John Slattery, Vice Dean for Research and Graduate Education,

UW Medicine Mani Soma, Associate Vice Provost for Research, Industry

Relations, Office of Research


Administrative Systems Oren Sreebny, Executive Director, Emerging Technology, UW

Technology Kathryn Waddell, Executive Director, Health Sciences

Administration Lizabeth (Betsy) Wilson, Dean, University Libraries Naomi Wilson, GPSS Student Representative Joseph Wolfgram, IT Director, UW Medicine



Roadmap Working Team Ann Anderson, Associate Vice President and Controller, Office

of Financial Management Linda Barrett, Director, Budget Operations, Office of Planning

and Budgeting Cindy Brown, Associate Vice Provost, Communications and

Outreach, Office of Information Management Elizabeth Coveney, Assistant Vice President, Human Resources

Administration and Information Systems Leann Dawson, Controller, UW Medical Center Accounting Walter Dryfoos, Associate Vice President, Advancement

Services, University Advancement David Eaton, Associate Vice Provost for Research, External

Relations, Office of Research Gary Farris, Director, Finance and Administration, Graduate

School Rhonda Forman, Assistant Vice Provost, Office of Academic

Personnel Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Officer, Office

of Information Management Jeanne Marie Isola, Associate Vice Provost, Strategic Projects

and Portfolios, Office of Information Management Charles Kennedy, Associate Vice President, Facilities, Finance

and Facilities Susan Lawrence, Director, IT Human Resources, UW

Technology Jim Loter, Associate Vice Provost, Community and Partnership

Development, Office of Information Management Todd Mildon, University Registrar, Office of the University

Registrar Alan Nygaard, Director Business Services, Capital Projects

Office Juan Pampin, Assistant Professor, Center for Digital Arts and

Experimental Media Barb Peterson, Director, Finance and Administration,

Department of Pathology, UW Medicine Jim Posey, Director, Institutional Research and Planning, UW

Tacoma Bill Shirey, Associate Vice Provost, Business Applications, Office

of Information Management Bill Yock, Associate Vice Provost, Enterprise Information

Services, Office of Information ManagementFacilitator:


Administrative Systems Jeanne Marie Isola, Associate Vice Provost, Strategic Projects

and Portfolios, Office of Information Management

IM/AS Technology Advisory Group Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Officer, Office

of Information Management (Lead) Kirk Bailey, Chief Information Security Officer, UW Technology John Drew, Director, Computing and Information Resources,

Graduate School Terry Gray, Associate Vice President, University Technology

Strategy, UW Technology Jim Kresl, Director, ORIS, Office of Research Tom Lewis, Director, Campus Engagement, Learning and

Scholarly Technologies, UW Technology Jim Loter, Associate Vice Provost, Community and Partnership

Development, Office of Information Management Erik Lundberg, Laboratory Director, Computer Science and

Engineering Scott Macklin, Chief Technology Officer, College of Education Sid McHarg, Director, Enterprise Platforms, UW Technology Patrick Pow, Director, Information Technology, UW Tacoma Gary Prohaska, Technology Manager, Office of Information

Management Bill Shirey, Associate Vice Provost, Business Applications, Office

of Information Management Oren Sreebny, Executive Director, Emerging Technology, UW

Technology Lori Stevens, Director, Distributed Systems, UW Technology Ian Taylor, Manager, UW Technology Betsy Tippens, Director, Information Systems, UW Bothell Joseph Wolfgram, IT Director, UW Medicine Bill Yock, Associate Vice Provost, Enterprise Information

Services, Office of Information ManagementFacilitators:

Jackie Bardsley, Office of Information Management-Consultant Maureen Noonan, Manager, Office of Information Management

Project Management Team


Administrative Systems Jeanne Marie Isola, Associate Vice Provost, Strategic Projects

and Portfolios, Office of Information Management (Project Manager)

Jackie Bardsley, Office of Information Management-Consultant Pat Bonner, Senior Project Manager, Office of Information

Management Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Officer, Office

of Information Management Nancy Rauhauser, Senior Technology Manager, Office of

Information Management Mary Syre, Systems Analyst Software Engineer, Office of




Administrative Systems Task Groups:Co-Leads:

Jeanne Marie Isola, Associate Vice Provost, Strategic Projects and Portfolios, Office of Information Management

Bill Shirey, Associate Vice Provost, Business Applications, Office of Information Management

University AdvancementSponsor:

Connie Kravas, Vice President, University AdvancementParticipants:

Walter Dryfoos, Associate Vice President, Advancement Services, University Advancement (Lead)

Sue Brockman, Director, Marketing Communications & Revenue Development, UW Alumni Association

Jaime Bruton, Technology Manager, Office of Information Management

Dondi Cupp, Assistant Vice President, Corporate and Foundation Relations

Elise Daniel, E-Communications Marketing Manager, UW Marketing

Shawn Drew, Director, Information Management, Office of Development

Ed Erickson, Assistant Director, Fund Development, Intercollegiate Athletics

Mark Lanum, Associate Director, Relationship Management, DRRM

Jamie Martin-Almy, Development Officer, UW Tacoma Key Nuttall, Director, Strategy & New Media, UW Marketing Tracy Ostrem, Assistant Dean, Development, Arts & Sciences Karl Otto, Associate Director, Development, UW Medicine Jackie Owens, Associate Director, Prospect Research and

Tracking, UW Medicine Nicole Pargoff, Annual Fund Officer, Michael G. Foster School of

Business Lisa Thomas, Regional Advancement Officer, Regional Gift

Programs


Administrative Systems Tricia Thompson, Associate Vice President, UW Marketing,

External Affairs, University AdvancementFacilitator:

Pat Bonner, Senior Project Manager, Office of Information Management



Facilities/SpaceSponsors:

Richard Chapman, Associate Vice President, Capital Projects Office

Charles Kennedy, Associate Vice President, Facilities Services Colleen Pike, Director, Capital and Space Planning

Participants: Charles Kennedy, Associate Vice President, Facilities Services

(Lead) Alan Nygaard, Director Business Services, Capital Projects

Office (Lead) James Angelosante, Director, Finance and Administration for

Health Sciences Michael Anthony, Executive Director, Management Accounting

and Analysis Leita Bain, Director, Facilities, Arts & Sciences John Chapman, Executive Director, Campus Engineering &

Operations, Facilities Services Richard Chapman, Associate Vice President, Capital Projects Tessa Coleman, Fiscal Specialist, UW Tacoma Facilities Services Peter Dewey, Facilities Planning Officer, Facilities Services Heidi Dlubac, Facilities Assistant to the Dean, Engineering Brent Holterman, Manager, University Services, Office of

Information Management Jack Klebeck, Assistant Director, Health Sciences Academic

Services & Facilities Jeff Linn, Manager Program Operations, Capital Space &

Planning Rob Lubin, Assistant Director, Facilities & Operations, Housing

and Food Services Greg Miller, Senior Accountant, Engineering Paul Reed Smith, Facilities Services Stephanie Steppe, Director, Health Sciences Services &

Facilities Pam Stewart, Executive Director, UW Technology Sarah Tipton, Arts & Sciences Karen VanDusen, Director, Environmental Health and Safety Paula Walker, Director, Space Planning, Library


Administrative SystemsFacilitator:

Nancy Rauhauser, Senior Technology Manager, Office of Information Management



Finance, Budget, and ProcurementSponsors:

Ruth Mahan, Vice Dean, Administration and Finance, UW Medicine

Gary Quarfoth, Associate Vice Provost, Office of Planning and Budgeting

V'Ella Warren, Senior Vice President, Finance and Facilities; Treasurer, Board of Regents Treasury Office

Participants: Ann Anderson, Assistant Vice President and Controller, Office of

Financial Management (Lead) Dave Asher, Director of Finance and Planning, Educational

Outreach Sue Camber, Associate Vice President, Grants and Contracts Mary Clark, Assistant Dean for Planning and Administration,

Information School Leann Dawson, Controller, UWMC Accounting Amy Floit, Budget Analyst, Budget Office Jeff Follman, Associate Controller, Financial Management Eric Hausman, Director, Finance and Business Services,

Facilities Services Tim McAllister, Technology Manager, Office of Information

Management Nancy McDonald, Director, Administration and Finance, UW

Medicine Linda Nelson, Director of Finance and Administration, Arts &

Sciences Peter Rackers, Director of Finance and Planning, Architecture

and Urban Planning Lawrie Robertson, Director, Finance & Administration, Public

Health Jan Rutledge, Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance &

Administration, UW Tacoma Jan Sullivan, Technology Manager, Office of Information

Management Karen Thomas, Technology Manager, Office of Information

ManagementFacilitator:


Administrative Systems Lisa Yeager, Senior Project Manager, Office of Information

Management

Human Resources/PayrollSponsors:

Cheryl Cameron, Vice Provost, Academic Personnel Mindy Kornberg, Vice President, Human Resources V'Ella Warren, Senior Vice President, Finance and Facilities;

Treasurer, Board of Regents Treasury OfficeParticipants:

Elizabeth Coveney, Executive Director, Human Resources Administration and Information Systems (Lead)

Rhonda Forman, Director, Academic Human Resources (Lead) Linda Braziel, Technology Manager, Office of Information

Management Charles Chamberlin, Senior Associate Dean, UW Libraries Curtis Colvin, Manager of Program Operations, UW Medicine Doug Divine, Operations Analyst, Academic Human Resources Bridget Doyle, Director of Academic Affairs, Public Health and

Community Medicine Vicky Anderson-Ellis, Director, Finance & Administration,

Social Work Trish Fiacchi, Director of Human Resources, UW Tacoma Shelby Fritz, Assistant to the Vice Chancellor, UW Tacoma Cindy Gregovich, Associate Controller, Payroll Mirtha Johnson, Director Payroll Services , UW Medical Centers

& UWPN Alisha LaPlante, HR Manager, Information School Susan Lawrence, Director of IT Human Resources, UW

Technology Barb Peterson, Director, Finance and Administration,

Department of Pathology, UW Medicine Judith Rapp, Administrator, Department of Surgery Pam Renfree, Director of Human Resources, Michael G. Foster

School of Business Denise Rollin, Human Resources Director, UW Bothell Tom Sparks, Financial Administrator, Engineering Gail Viscione, Administrator, School of Pharmacy Susan Williams, Administrator, Arts & Sciences


Administrative SystemsFacilitators:

Pat Bonner, Senior Project Manager, Office of Information Management

Gary Prohaska, Technology Manager, Office of Information Management

Research AdministrationSponsors:

Mary Lidstrom, Vice Provost for Research, Office of Research Kathryn Waddell, Director, Health Sciences Administration

Participants: David Eaton, Associate Vice Provost for Research, Office of

Research (Lead) Kathy Bracy, Director, Office of Research and Graduate

Education, UW Medicine David Brown, Director of Finance and Business Operations,

Technology Transfer Jeff Cheek, Associate Vice Provost for Research Compliance &

Operations , Office of Research Mary Heusner, Director, Research, College of Engineering Jim Kresl, Director, Office of Research Russ McDuff, Director, School of Oceanography Dick Meisinger, Assistant Dean for Planning and New Initiatives

, Office of Research and Graduate Education, UW Medicine Diane Merz, Director, Clinical Research Budget & Billing Support

Office Karen Moe, Director & Assistant Vice Provost for Research,

Office of Research Vicky Palm, Director, Grants and Contracts, Arts &Sciences Nona Phillips, Director, Office of Animal Welfare Elise Ralph, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Sponsored Research,

UW Tacoma Tami Sadusky, Executive Director, Grants and Contracts John Streck, Office of Research Karen VanDusen, Director, Environmental Health and Safety

Facilitator: Darcy Van Patten, Program Manager, Office of Research

Student Administration


Administrative SystemsSponsors:

Eric Godfrey, Vice Provost, Student Life Sheila Edwards Lange, Vice President, Minority Affairs and

Vice Provost of Diversity David Szatmary, Vice Provost, Educational Outreach Ed Taylor, Vice Provost and Dean, Undergraduate Academic

Affairs V'Ella Warren, Senior Vice President, Finance and Facilities;

Treasurer, Board of Regents Treasury OfficeParticipants:

Todd Mildon, University Registrar, Office of the University Registrar (Lead)

Joan Abe, Director, Graduate Admissions and Student Services Dave Brown, UW Graduate and Professional Student Senate Susan Camber, Associate Vice President, Financial Management Hung Dang, Assistant Vice Chancellor and Registrar, Enrollment

Management, UW Bothell Tyler Dockins, ASUW Alice Few, Computer Support Analyst, Institutional Research &

Planning, UW Tacoma Roberta Hopkins, Director, Classroom Support Services William Jackson, Director of Academic Services, School of Law Ruth Johnston, Associate Vice President, Finance and Facilities Julie Katz, Assistant Dean, Academic Services, School of Nursing Paul LePore, Assistant Dean, Dean's Office, Arts &Sciences Kay Lewis, Director, Student Financial Aid Tom Lewis, Director of Campus Engagement, Learning and

Scholarly Technologies, UW Technology Mariko Navin, Undergraduate Advisor, Civil and Environmental

Engineering Hugh Parker, Technology Manager, Office of Information

Management Michelle Trudeau, Director, Student & Academic Services,

Forest Resources Deborah Wiegand, Assistant Dean, Undergraduate Academic

Affairs Clark Westmoreland, Executive Director of Operations, UW

Educational Outreach


Administrative Systems Steve Woodard, Assistant Vice President, Office of Minority

Affairs and Diversity Karen Yuhas, Assistant Director, Housing and Food Services

Facilitator: Melissa Bravo, Project Manager, Strategic Projects and

Portfolios, Office of Information Management

Information Management Task Groups:Decision SupportSponsor:

Michael Eisenberg, Dean Emeritus, Information SchoolParticipants:

Bill Yock, Associate Vice Provost, Enterprise Information Services, Office of Information Management (Lead)

Paul Ahlstrom, Database & Web Analyst, UW Bothell Charles Bennett, Assistant Vice President, Finance and

Facilities Bob Blum, Director of Database Services, Arts &Sciences John Drew, Director, Computing and Information Resources,

Graduate School Walter Dryfoos, Associate Vice President, Advancement

Services, Development and Alumni Relations Eric Elkins, Database Analyst, Institutional Research & Planning,

UW Tacoma David Fray, Director, Departmental Computing, Engineering Charlene Gilder, Manager, Department Computing, Dean of

Medicine Administration & Finance Phil Hoffman, Director, Office of Institutional Studies Joe Kittleson, Director, Human Resources Information Systems Jim Kresl, Director, Office of Research Linda Lake, Assistant Dean, Evans School of Public Affairs Nana Lowell, Director, Office of Educational Assessment Scott Macklin, Chief Technology Officer, College of Education Todd Mildon, University Registrar, Office of the University

Registrar Dinah Walters, Senior Systems Analyst, Finance and Facilities

Decision SupportFacilitators:


Administrative Systems Kerry Lamb, Technology Manager, Office of Information

Management Marcy Tufarolo, Senior Technology Manager, Office of


IntegrationSponsors:

Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Management

Scott Mah, Associate Vice President, UW TechnologyParticipants:

Gary Prohaska, Technology Manager, Office of Information Management (Lead)

Tony Chang, Integration Architect, UW Technology David Chou, Chief Technical Officer, UW Medicine IT Services John Drew, Director, Computing and Information Services,

Graduate School Shawn Drew, Director of Information Management, Office of

Development Alin Hunter, Senior Applications Systems Engineer, Office of

Information Management Peter Libbey, Software Engineer, UW Technology Tom Lewis, Director of Campus Engagement, Learning and

Scholarly Technologies, UW Technology Erik Lundberg, Laboratory Director, Computer Science and

Engineering Bob Morgan, Senior Technology Architect, UW Technology Paul Schurr, Office of Information Management Peter Scott, Director, Technology & Systems Management,

Minority Affairs Scott Stephenson, Senior Information Technology Architect,

Office of Information Management Lori Stevens, Director, Distributed Systems, UW Technology Ian Taylor, Manager, UW Technology Alan Westhagen, Manager, Enterprise Platforms, UW

Technology Kirk Wolden-Hanson, Director, Computing, Arts &Sciences Joseph Wolfgram, IT Director, UW Medicine


Administrative Systems Bill Yock, Associate Vice Provost, Enterprise Information

Services, Office of Information ManagementFacilitators:

Kerry Lamb, Technology Manager, Office of Information Management

Marcy Tufarolo, Senior Technology Manager, Office of Information Management



Governance Task GroupSponsors:

Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Management

Ron Johnson, Chief Technology Officer Matt O'Donnell, Dean, Engineering V'Ella Warren, Senior Vice President, Finance and Facilities;

Treasurer, Board of Regents Treasury Office Phyllis Wise, Provost and Executive Vice President

Participants: Cindy Brown, Associate Vice Provost, Communications and

Outreach, Office of Information Management (Lead) Jim Loter, Associate Vice Provost, Community and Partnership

Development, Office of Information Management (Lead) Mary Syre, Systems Analyst Software Engineer, Office of

Information ManagementFacilitator:

Nancy Rauhauser, Senior Technology Manager, Office of Information Management

Roadmap Report and Web Site Team Cindy Brown, Associate Vice Provost, Communications and

Outreach, Office of Information Management (Lead) Jackie Bardsley, Office of Information Management-Consultant Alexis Raphael, Communications and Outreach, Office of

Information Management Nancy Rauhauser, Senior Technology Manager, Office of

Information Management Kathryn Sharpe, Communications Specialist, Office of

Information Management and UW Technology Mary Syre, Systems Analyst Software Engineer, Office of


UW Strategic Roadmap for Administrative Systems

Documents

Transcript of UW Strategic Roadmap for Administrative Systems