Dolgonas asked if any items not on the agenda needed to be raised:

• Coy recapped status of Title Code Workgroup indicating that they last met on 01/15/97 and were targetting 02/14/97 for a draft report being sent to the campuses; also reiterated the objective of developing projects for ESTF consideration
• Owen recapped status of plans for automating merits

12/10/96 minutes were reconfirmed as final.

The following changes to the draft 01/10/97 minutes were approved by the Planning Committee:

• Under the heading 'Review "Key Policy Issues"':
  * (per O'Neill): 2^nd Key Policy Issues document, 4th bullet item had following parenthetical statement added at end of paragraph "(note that at the 02/03/97 meeting, O'Neill confirmed this has been added to the list)"

• Under the heading 'Discuss General ESTF Issues':
  * (per Lopez): 3^rd from last item changed from "should be centrally administered" to "should be centrally developed"

• Under the heading 'Review Campus Projects, Activities, and Issues Discussed at 12/10/96 ESTF Planning Committee Meeting for Possible ESTF Candidate Projects':
  * (per Allison): the 3 projects identified as "rejected" should actually be included on the list of potential projects, given that no projects have as-of-yet been formally rejected
  * (per Owen): 5th from last item should not just include "worker's compensation" but also "leave accruals, hours worked/hours paid" as good examples

Hays reported a variety of items of interest to UCD following discussions with various campus people:

• employee tracking system
• ad hoc reporting, e.g., integrating PPS and Benefits data such as service credit
• data warehouse
• electronic claims processing so that the OP Benefits Department and local Campus Offices could electronically exchange data
• disability processing; also include a "non-industrial" claims process; for example, when trying to determine when was an employee last paid, a paper-driven process is currently utilized rather than an electronic-based medium process; further, improved reporting capabilities are desired
• facilitate improved processes for employees: to update their W-4s; to perform gross-to-net modelling; to access their Surepay and W-2 history data via the web; also include faxback functionality in these applications
• improve and expand electronic routing, in general; for example, though PAFs have been eliminated, there are still many approval processes required that could be improved to interface better with PAN

Owen suggested including case tracking once approvals are received in some of the items listed by Hays.

Hays also reported that they had given a positive review to a web-based customer service application demonstrated by Fidelity; a training session was included and among the items appreciated was the inclusion of legal definitions as part of the application.

Dolgonas explained that the Policy Committee wanted to understand better why previously cited problems with a departmental entry of action codes occur. They suggested that this be a topic for focus group discussion.

Allison noted that in some cases data may actually be input "correctly," but may be mapped "incorrectly" to other data elements; further, improvements in access to history data may lessen these types of problems. Lastly, there are also additional problems with history data and its use than these.

Dolgonas added that the Policy Committee believes that records access is a generic problem and not just limited to PPS and Benefits.

Dolgonas raised the issue of smart cards. Brainerd cited some usage at UCSD, though there are no pictures included on them. Hays cited usage at UCD by students, but not for employees; further, she cited the need for improved definitions and flexibility of security levels.

A document recapping primary objectives for today's and subsequent ESTF Planning Committee meetings was distributed and discussed; see below for a basic recap

02/03/97 ESTF Planning Committee Meeting

• Collect Feedback on Best Practices
• Collect Campus Consultative Feedback
• Collect Pilot Focus Group Feedback

• Collect Feedback on Best Practices
• Collect Final Focus Group Feedback
• Refine ESTF Potential Projects List
• Agree upon Criteria for Prioritization

• Assign Project Priorities
• Assign Project Time Estimates
• Assign Project Cost Estimates
• Draft Planning Committee Report

Brainerd asked about ESTF funding issues and Dolgonas responded that the Potential ESTF Project Candidates report will include a column for estimated costs.

Lopez noted that the complexity of UC policies, complexity of the interfaces themselves, and training-related problems compound cost issues.

Morissette added that there are also technical issues to be considered when estimating costs, e.g., hardware. Lopez noted that bandwidth issues should also be considered in terms of any additional networking costs that may be incurred to accommodate an increase in traffic.

Hays reported that a possible source of information is the Certified Employee Benefit Specialists (CEBS).

Allison suggested consulting other HR web sites for further information on best practices.

Morissette reported that HRSB provided a cross-section of RFP synthesized information; no organizations provided yet; however, further suggested contacting vendors that supply applications for further information on best practices.

Martinez reported that Harvard is implementing Oracle for HR and Payroll Systems. Oracle indicated to Harvard that many organizations are facing the same questions that UC is facing.

Dolgonas reported that Taylor had recommended a couple of vendors that would be worth pursuing; one was Hewlett-Packard in Palo Alto; the other was another Northern California company.

Garretson reported that NACUBO's information is relatively limited, given that there are approximately only 19 participants; however, UCI had received a top prize from NACUBO.

Sautter reported that he hadn't heard back from Richard Katz at CAUSE yet for examples of exemplars in higher education Human Resources.

Layne reported that he hadn't received much feedback yet from other auditors; however, he was aware that SAP was being installed at Chevron and PG&E.

Lopez reported that on 02/13/97, Fortune Magazine was sponsoring a presentation focused mostly on private industry at the Ritz-Carlton that still might be of interest to people on the ESTF Planning Committee in light of its PeopleSoft perspective.

O'Neill and Brainerd reported about a Private Industry Forum being held in Las Vegas that might be of interest. Further, there is an upcoming APA meeting being held in San Diego. O'Neill added that he would be visiting Pacific Bell soon.

Dolgonas reported that he would visiting McGraw-Hill soon in light of Peat Marwick recommending them as an exemplary site.

Allison reported a variety of items for UCSC:

• there is concern with existing HR processing
• PAN has caused some problems as it is too slow

Allison then recapped her top priority items for UCSC:

1. history
2. ad hoc reporting
3. PAN improvement

Lopez reported a list of major points/needs for UCSF:

1. easier/more accurate front-end, i.e., GUI
2. expansion of paperless objectives, e.g., more IVR expansion
3. improved management reporting
4. improved integration with other applications
5. improved data history and accuracy
6. improved employee access to own data
7. improved salary administration

• PPS top priority items are:
  1. front-end improvement
  2. access to data improvement
  3. history improvement
• electronic access for a variety of PPS processing is a priority project; such processing should also facilitate access across departments
• applicant tracking is another priority project

Hays said that in addition to what she had reported earlier, she noted "almost verbatim" similarity to Allison's report, e.g., problems with speed of PAN, the lack of pre-approval functionality, response time problems, and history access.

Brainerd that she, too, found a lot of similarity for UCSD in what other campuses were reporting. Additionally, she would like to see application functionality to address mass entry of certain transactions, e.g., when hundreds and potentially thousands of students need to be employed in similar positions.

Dolgonas asked about local bulk notification processing that was implemented at UCSD. Brainerd noted that departments can access this application and that the same rights to the EDB are carried forward in this application.

Morisette and Owen distributed a document listing UCB's "Employee Systems Needs Identified by Campus Users" after consulting with Academic Personnel, Department Personnel Managers, etc. A partial list was then verbally recapped:

• history
• salary administration
• ad hoc reporting
• case tracking for academics
• position management
• more integration of systems
• more modelling applications/functions
• automating merits

As a general observation, she believes that PPS is being sought to effect functions it wasn't originally designed to do and also wondered how any one product would/could be integrated to address the present diverse campus requirements.

O'Neill distributed a "Updated on Merit Process Work Group" document from the 01/30/97 Payroll Managers' Meeting. Martinez noted that this needs to be done in time for the July 1 merits.

Walton distributed a couple documents: "UC BENEFITS - PROPOSED PPS ENHANCEMENTS" dated February 1997 and "PPS PROJECTS - COMING SOON/IN PLANNING" dated 01/27/97.

Min distributed the "ESTF Planning Committee Pilot Focus Group Report" and along with Layne, Martinez, and Walton reported on the pilot focus group sessions held at OP.

No items from the sessions were presented with unanimous support, though the primary consensus items voiced were:

1. increase access to personal information
2. improve existing processes
3. increase/improve functions supporting online access
4. improve communication to employees about important processes and access to records and information

The next step of campus focus group sessions was then raised. Brainerd agreed to initiate a process at UCSD and Dolgonas agreed to follow-up with Ogren to see if focus group sessions could be facilitated at UCLA.

Copies of "final" campus reports from SF, SB, and SC were distributed to all Committee members. Copies of latest draft campus reports from BK, LA, RV, SD, and IR were distributed to all Committee members following revisions by Coy's staff to adhere to the model format initiated by SF. These campuses were requested to finalize their reports upon review of the latest drafts. DV's report is continuing to be drafted.

Hays asked for clarification of the Campus Reports' objectives. Dolgonas responded that goals were two-fold:

1. provide an accurate report to the ESTF Policy Committee of what were the actual local campus modifications to help assess the degree of variation by campus; and
2. provide a source of data for the ESTF Planning Committee to consider as Potential ESTF Project Candidates.

The next Planning Committee meeting will be held in the Oakland Kaiser Center on Monday, 02/24/97, from 9:30AM - 3:30PM, in conference room 1712.

At the next committee meeting, 02/24/97:

• Reports on UCSD and UCLA (Dolgonas will follow-up with Ogren to confirm UCLA's participation) Focus Groups will be discussed
  note: Ogren did confirm

• Continued discussions of "best practices" will be supplemented by onsite visits to at least two northern California companies recommended by Taylor
  note: Layne will coordinate visit to Levi Strauss (SF) and Owen will coordinate visit to Hewlett-Packard (Palo Alto); Allison and Martinez are interested in attending

• UCB, UCD, UCLA, UCR, UCSD, UCI will finalize their Local Campus Payroll Modification reports
• Latest draft of Potential ESTF Project Candidates report will be distributed prior to the next ESTF Planning Committee meeting (10 days after the 02/03/97 meeting)

• Project priority criteria will be discussed

• Models of funding training and approaches that have previously been utilized will be discussed