General comments about the review process were initially discussed:

• Committee consensus was reached on continuing with electronic distribution of draft and final minutes

• Committee consensus was reached on sharing draft versions of minutes with appropriate parties on campuses and UCOP, though the draft nature of the document should always be understood

Under the heading "Among the projects, activities, and issues presented were the following:"

• (per Owen): 1st bullet item changed from "for academic history and for applicant tracking;" to "for staff and academic history and ultimately for applicant tracking;"
• (per Ogren): 3rd bullet item changed from "for employees to determine their check amounts" to "for employees to access their records including such functions as determining their check amounts"
• (per Owen): 4th bullet item changed from "lack of payroll history" to "lack of personnel history"
• (per Martinez): 6th bullet item changed from "duplicaton of effort as well as data;" to "duplication of effort as well as data and also, data inconsistency;"
• (per O’Neill): 7th bullet item changed from "Reducing the Number of Pay Cycles to one, probably biweekly;" to "Reducing the Number of Pay Cycles;"
• (per Walton): delete 15th bullet item- "one campus reported on difficulties with blocking of access to UCRS retiree data;"

The five key policy documents distributed at the previous meeting were discussed.

1) The Committee discussed the Relationship of HR/Benefits Reorganization document and

-re: item #2:

-re: item #3:

-re: item #4:

-re: item #5:

2) The Committee discussed the Central Demographic Database document and

-re: item #1, Advantages:

-re: item #2, Advantages:

-re: general document comments:

3) The Committee discussed the Divergence of Payroll System document and

-re: general document comments:

4) The Committee discussed the Unified HR Direction document and

-re: general document comments:

5) The Committee discussed the Separation of Payroll and HR document and

-re: general document comments:

Dolgonas noted that the Policy Committee was next meeting on 01/15/97.

Dolgonas noted that the Planning Committee’s portions of the final ESTF report should include:

• Identification of Projects
• Priority of Projects
• Benefit of Projects
• Cost of Projects

Lopez asked for clarification of "Identification of Projects." That is, should the list include tangible items, e.g., history reporting, or more intangible issues, e.g., balancing centralized control objectives as opposed to advantages of decentralization.

Dolgonas clarified that identifying more tangible items is the responsibility of the Planning Committee. Dolgonas noted that the latter case is evident today in such areas as a mix of centralized Payroll with those campuses pursuing local Personnel projects.

Colley cited the need for effective interface capabilities with banking institutions.

Ogren noted that local payroll changes are often effected simply to save money, e.g., laser printing checks.

Lopez cited the need to consider integration vs. division perspectives. Payroll and Personnel have some natural ties as do Personnel and Benefits. Lopez cited the example of entering an appointment; generally speaking, this is easy to do in Payroll, but difficult to process in Personnel. Lopez emphasized the importance of data ownership, regardless of where the data elements reside, e.g., whether in Payroll or Personnel.

Owen noted concerns over how a resulting split of Payroll and Personnel would impact interfaces between the two.

Martinez and Owen cited need for "real time" data.

Lopez noted that the "build vs. buy" issue should be included when contacting outside sources for input.

Lopez cited "leave accrual" again as an example of an item that should be centrally developed, but locally administered as should be the ability to create local title codes rapidly.

Colley proposed a possible "out of the box" solution: have local campuses send their own resources (FTE) to the central office to effect a locally requested priority task. This would enable the functionality to be centrally administered while simultaneously effecting the the requirements expeditiously.

General consensus was that this approach actually has been done in the past.

Projects approved by the Committee as Possible ESTF Candidate Projects:

• Position Control
• Academic and Staff History
• Applicant Tracking and Retrieval
• Employee Access and Update to/for Their Own Data

  note: may be 2 different processes, i.e., one for access and one for update

• GUI Interface

• Position Requisition Application

  note: Lopez noted analogy to a P.O. for people and further, that this would likely be locally run

• Staff Employment Application

  note: for the applicant, not UC

• Carrier Directories Application

  note: Walton noted that UC is using its collective nine campus leverage to require the carriers themselves to develop/maintain such data on the web

• Electronic Access of Employee Records Maintained in Hardcopy Paper Format

  note: Walton cited existing Benefits workflow applications and a "new hires" project

• Easy Access to Employee Data
• Easy Reporting of Employee Data
• Integrated Training Application
• Academic and Staff Support for Timely Updates and Support for the Title Code System
• Central and Local Need for Supporting Title Codes
• Medical Compensation Plan or Ability to Calculate components of Compensation
• Effort Reporting and Cost Sharing

  note: Carpenter noted the need for PAR replacement

• Online Insurance Forms
• PPS Data Warehousing
• Local Salary Scales and Market Data

Ogren raised "shadow systems."

Dolgonas cited the objective of reducing the need for "shadow systems."

Owen noted that "worker’s compensation, leave accruals, hours worked/hours paid" are good examples of the need for a local system that interfaces with a centralized, base system.

Lopez noted that there is a "pre-awards" process in Payroll involving building a budget and proposals; the "post-awards" process entails midyear budgeting and interfacing Payroll and Accounting systems.

Dolgonas raised "research administration."

Garretson noted the need for cost sharing and how costs are captured, not just for Payroll which is huge, but is not the lone item.

Ogren noted budget variance computations, vacation, and sick leave issues.

Committee discussed document from the perspective of whether the item is now considered complete:

A1)

• Lopez reported this was mostly addressed/done
• Owen reported that access and reporting issues are still not done

A2)

• Owen reported that a large percentage of Action Codes are coded as "other"
• Lopez reported that some appointment expirations are still unclear
• Walton asked about casual appointments
• Carpenter noted that data is not easily interpretted and that screen displays are not user-friendly; further, Action Codes are not derived easily and there are too many values of "other"
• Dolgonas asked about developing an algorithm to address the "other" issue
• Ogren noted problems of getting the data input
• Garretson suggested citing more actively the benefits of better data input to the groups responsible for data entry
• Owen noted the irony of introducing derived Action Codes as originally having the best intentions, but its resulting in the afore-mentioned problems; Owen suggested better edits

A3)

• Ogren explained that I4 (separation after 4 months) was implemented, but others mentioned that some refinement of the automatic separations would be helpful

A4)

• Owen reported that this was OK, though Berkeley has to modify locally because it’s on the semester system
• Garretson reported "by agreement" problems
• Owen reported that pre-editting could solve some of the "tweaking" needs

A5)

• Owen reported this is partially done

A6)

• Owen and Lopez reported this is pending requirements for HRMI
• O’Neill and Martinez reported that though not done, Patti Yamashita (OP) is chairing a "merit process" workgroup to address such issues

A7)

• Lopez reported that for percentage-based pay, errors are created for the ancillary pay
• Dolgonas reported that this had been corrected

A8)

• Coy will follow-up with Marit Marino (OP) for status

A9)

• Consensus response was to skip this item since it’s simply the earlier discussed history issue

A10)

• Lopez, Ogren, and Carpenter reported that this was not done

A11)

• Garretson, Lopez, Carpenter, and Ogren reported that some, not all is done, though it is improved, overall

A12)

• Dolgonas noted that front-end edits are done, though ironically, the example cited is actually not done
• Ogren reported that except for academics, HRMI may make this moot

A13)

• Consensus response was that the timing of updates remains the same and some members mentioned the need for real-time access to up-to-the-minute information
• Coy cited the continuing need for a database snapshot

B1)

• Owen reported that some was done
• Lopez noted that this is the reporting and access issue

B2)

• Consensus response was this was done

B3)

• Consensus reponse was:
  Fully Done: E, H, I
  Partially Done: F (Sabbaticals still not)
  Not Done: B, C, G
  Unknown: A, D
  

B4)

• Consensus response was this was not done

B5)

• Consensus response was this was not done

B6)

• Garretson reported that all associated forms aren’t done
• Dolgonas proposed that forms should be added to the Project List

B7)

• Lopez reported this was done

B8)

• Consensus response was this was done

Dolgonas raised utilization of other such lists, e.g., Payroll, Benefits.

Ogren noted that she could work with O’Neill on developing a payroll list.

Copies of campus reports from SF, RV, and SB were distributed to all Committee members. SF’s report was particularily well-received by the Committee for its clarity, overall quality and presentation. Single copy of campus reports from BK and LA were handed to Min.

Dolgonas referenced SF’s local revisions re: the "Incentive Award Program Assessment Rebate."

O’Neill noted that it seemed to be against PPS Policy. Lopez responded that it was not against Policy and briefly recapped supporting documentation history, i.e., series of communications between his SF office and Assistant Vice-President Lubbe Levin’s OP office. Other campuses expressed some interest in the SF changes, if they are within Policy.

Dolgonas asked that those campuses still needing to provide lists of local payroll modifications to the base system including a short description of the reason for the change and an assessment of the scope of the change should provide them quickly, given the next step of consolidating the report information.

Dolgonas raised utilization of professional organizations to identify organizations with "best practices."

Morissette, Lopez, and Ogren cited examples, e.g., CAUSE, NACUBO, CCQS.

The following groups will contact professional organizations and/or related companies in order to identify institutions/organizations which exemplify "best practices". These contacts are to be made prior to the next meeting so that the candidate best practice sites can be brought to the next ESTF meeting.

• Personnel Professional Organizations: Marilyn, Patti, Tom, Randy, Celena, Laura, Leslye
• Payroll Professional Organizations: Sally, Mike (may also want to check with Don Suycott)
• California Council for Quality & Service (CCQS): Pixie
• CAUSE: Judy, Larry, Jim, Benny
• Fidelity: Myrna
• Auditors other than Deloitte: Richard
• Deloitte: Jim

  Dolgonas raised utilization of Focus groups.

  Lopez asked for initial list of common questions to be developed for Focus groups.

  Dolgonas recommended an open approach, i.e., questions that ask generally "what new processes/systems do you want?" or "what do you like about current processes/systems?" UCOP Staff to meet and discuss use of web and other technologies for gathering input from employees.

  
  

  ---

  Schedule:

  The next Planning Committee meeting will be held in the Oakland Kaiser Center on Monday, 02/03/97, from 9:30AM - 3:30PM; date, time, and room confirmation will follow (along with confirmation of latest task assignments that should be disseminated even prior to next drafts of meeting minutes.)

  
  

  ---

  Next Steps:

  By the next committee meeting, 02/03/97:

  • Selected committee members will contact professional organizations and/or related companies in order to identify institutions/organizations which exemplify "best practices".

  • All campus members will solicit input from campus consultative groups on possible goals/objectives/projects for the ESTF.

  • Jim will set up a meeting for UCOP committee members within the next week to discuss ideas on soliciting feedback via the web. The results of this discussion will be brought to the next ESTF meeting.

  • Benny will create a new ESTF Planning Committee listserv.

  ESTF Home

  ---

  Last updated March 26, 1997