Dolgonas announced that Stuart Lynn would be joining the meeting for a short presentation later this morning.

01/10/97 minutes were reconfirmed as final.

The following changes to the draft 02/03/97 minutes were approved by the Planning Committee:

Under the heading "Discuss Issues from last Policy Committee Meeting (01/15/97":

• (per Allison): 2^nd paragraph had following sentence added: "Lastly, there are also additional problems with history data and its use than these."

Under the heading "Review 'Best Practices' Sites":

• (per Martinez): 4^th paragraph was revised as "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."

Under the heading "Review Other UC Reports":

• (per Allison): Under top priority items for UCSC, item #3 should be expanded to be "PAN improvement" rather than simple "PAN"
• (per Allison): In the next paragraph, the words "really" and "very" should be dropped
• (per Brainerd): In the UCSD section, the last sentence should be restated as "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."

Also, though not changes, the following items in the draft 02/03/97 minutes were discussed:

• Dolgonas asked for clarification over the UCD Campus Report item pertaining to "electronic claims processing so that the OP Benefits Department and local Campus Offices could electronically exchange data"; Walton explained that what was being referenced was a documents management application that would facilitate document exchanges across both the campuses and OP; further, it would not just be used for claims processing, but in general for accessing client records as well
• Dolgonas asked if anyone else had seen Fidelity's web-based customer service application demo that was referenced in the UCD Campus Report; Walton answered that she was following-up with Fidelity to discuss setting-up a possible demo
• During review of the "Best Practices" section:

• Dolgonas asked if any committee members had any Oracle contacts to recommend; as none were provided, he will use his sales/marketing contact to set-up an initial discussion of their HR software
• Carpenter said that SAP was giving a presentation to UCSB later that week, too, after Dolgonas had reported that SAP was giving a presentation to UCOP; it was confirmed that Steve Borchers was a SAP contact for both presentations
• Dolgonas added news from CAUSE indicating that he had heard back from CAUSE, but that they had no recommendations in the areas of interest
• O'Neill reported that he had not yet gone to Pacific Bell, but the onsite visit was scheduled for 02/25/97; however, he had already spoken with the SAP Project Manager who told him that they had similar objectives with UC
• Dolgonas reported on his McGraw-Hill visit:

• They utilize a "service center" concept which is basically tantamount to a central helpdesk
• McGraw-Hill has companies all over the world and has done lots of centralization for Payroll, HR, Benefits for employees
• McGraw-Hill has implemented end-user access (including update functionality) via kiosks or terminals, though not yet from home due to security concerns/issues
• A kiosk demo was presented that utilized PINs as part of their security and functions demonstrated included an impressive application that supported changing and modelling W-4s
• Essence was the kiosk vendor credited with the application development

• Dolgonas referenced the last ESTF Policy Committee meeting on 02/21/97 and noted that the Policy Committee had decided that application development shouldn't be limited by a "lowest common denominator" approach when addressing issues such as employee access to web, ivr, and kiosk technologies

Modifications are currently underway to address I-4 enhancements. To assure these meet the needs stated by members of the ESTF, O'Neill will posst planned enhancements to the ESTF Planning Committee listserv for comments and feedback. After briefly verbally recapping its plan explaining that a table could be entered at each campus for DOS codes and that each campus had been contacted for UNEX and other values, he asked for any preliminary comments.

Allison said that UCSC was not using the I-4 process at all and thought that perhaps UCR had done the same. O'Neill noted that "without salary appointments" should be by-passed.

Ogren noted that "nobody likes having the I-4 separation process, but we have it because we have to have it because of benefit requirements."

Allison referenced an 18 months of inactivity item in addition to I-4 and its relationship to Defined Contribution Plan (DCP) accumulations to be refunded. Owen noted that Benefits requires separation PAFs prior to processing refunds and thought that have these automatically generated would be a good project candidate. Brainerd noted that UCSD faces similar issues and wondered if timing issues were hampering process improvement. Walton noted that simplifying the provision of separation data to UCOP Benefits would be addressed in the Benefits Re-Engineering project.

Ogren noted that not all problems can be addressed by creating new DOS codes.

Owen reported that she has many Hewlett-Packard (HP) contacts, but is still awaiting confirmation from HP before a final visit date can be scheduled.

Layne reported that he is awaiting Levi Strauss call and email responses.

Dolgonas reported that UCSF, among others, had recommended Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) as an exemplar and asked for volunteers for an onsite visit to AMD. Allison agreed to take the lead on this.

Lopez reported that HP was referenced by Watson/Wyatt in their annual "Best Practices Report" in HR largely because of the integration of technology into a refocused HR operation. Much of it was focused on the employment process (question whether that will be a priority at the end).

Lopez also noted that Levi Strauss was referenced, but that he didn't have a lot of detail about it other than from the Fortune seminar he had attended from which he learned that Levi Strauss has a good intranet application named "Eureka" that provides "people-centric" access.

Lopez further reported that PeopleSoft did a show-and-tell about their own internal HR system which had integrated IVR as well as their own system software for internal HR. They do use IVR, for example, for benefit initial enrollment, and even do W-4's via IVR.

Lopez cited Advanced Micro Devices again and said that one of the founders of the two big associations on this topic (HRSP - Human Resources Systems Professionals and IHRIM - International Human Resources Information Management) is in the Bay Area at Advanced Micro Devices. His name is Donald Drucker. They particularly tout their data warehouse application.

Lopez closed by referencing KPMG who did a demo of intranet applications that they created for clients using different applications and environments.

Dolgonas also referenced KPMG and relayed that they had indicated that roughly 65% of new HR application users are using PeopleSoft.

Dolgonas then stated that a structured approach in soliciting feedback from the exemplar onsite visits should be followed and solicited feedback from committee members. The following questions, comments, subject-areas were proposed and ultimately posted to the ESTF Planning Committee listserv:

1. How many employees does the company have? How does the company operate, e.g., are their operations centralized or de-centralized? Do departments, divisions, and companies support HR operations or are all operations supported centrally? What size staff does it take to support systems that are run centrally?
2. What is the profile of the employee base (regular career-type employees versus the diversity of shift-working, student, academic, medical personnel found within the University)? How easily does the system accommodate this diverse a population?
3. What are the sites' operating system or technical platform issues? For example, must all the users of the application(s) run on a 32-bit Windows platform (either '95 or NT)? Did they have to convert any users from one platform to another during the implementation of the application? How many platforms do they support? Are application systems run centrally or locally? Are they vendor packages? If so, to what extent are they modified (customized)?
4. How are the sites' application interfaces handled? For example, how does their Payroll Application interface with their Human Resources application or with a Financial application? Are HR and Payroll integrated or separate? Do they see advantages to separation or combining these two systems? Do they have a data warehouse? If so, what data is included in it and how is the data interface (or source feed) processed?
5. How are retirement and/or benefits issues handled? For example, how can a defined contribution plan and/or defined benefit plan member find out his/her retirement balances, e.g., via web, IVR, kiosk, fax, statement (paper) mailing?
6. How are employee records, in general, accessed and updated from both the employer and employee perspective? For example, how would an employer find out how many years of service an employee had? How would the employee find out that same information? How would an employee update beneficiary, W-4, and health enrollments?
7. How complex are the sites' administrative policies? For example, do they have large number of unions and/or union member participation? Do employees have multiple appointments? How many payroll cycles do they support? How much customization was required to address the required cyclical processing, e.g., to support the variety of payroll schedules? Do their systems effectively handle the required transaction volumes as well as variety of transaction types?
8. What types of salary administration issues does the site face? For example, how does the site support incentive based pay? If so, are these systems able to calculate the incentive pay figures? Are salary surveys and/or modelling done? Is succession planning done? If so, what systems support it?
9. How do the central offices manage documents? For example, are they stored offsite or all converted for electronic storage? Are all of an employee's records accessible to whoever needs them from across the organization? How is retrieval of documents facilitated? What kind of workflow processes are utilized?
10. What kind of historical recordkeeping is maintained for employee data? For example, what kind of ad hoc reporting capabilities are supported for central office needs?

The general consensus of the Planning Committee is that UC's policies are quite complex.

Morissette suggested consulting with vendors for public sector exemplars, specifically in the area of higher education.

Dolgonas noted that MIT is using SAP's financial software, but isn't sure about their HR software.

O'Neill noted the blurring of lines between audit and consulting practices by some vendors.

Lopez noted that incentive-based pay applications are fairly common in sales organizations.

Martinez cited a positive report from the University of Oklahoma on the Incentive Funding Module from PeopleSoft, explaining that rather than develop a homegrown package, they purchased this from an external vendor.

Dolgonas cited the issue of benchmarking salary data. Layne noted that PG&E often does salary surveys and modelling.

Dolgonas asked how other organizations deal with succession planning. Layne responded that at PG&E, it was not found to be especially useful.

Lynn began by again thanking all ESTF Planning Committee members for their efforts.

Lynn addressed the subject of project priority by referencing the ESTF Framework document, specificically, the Goals and Flexibility sections of the document.

Under Goals, Lynn cited the following points and themes in explaining criteria for proposing project priority:

• Reassessment:

• Projects should be robust and forward-thinking
• Projects should reflect changing business practices
• Example projects include UCOP Benefits Re-Engineering, Demographic Database

• People-Centric:

• Projects should support self-help functionality
• Projects should make it easier for people to do things as well as improving their processes
• Example projects include using ivr, web, and kiosks to get away from paper

• Eliminate Redundant and Ad Hoc Systems:

• Projects should improve accountability and controls
• Example projects include improved audit reporting functionality

• Integrate with Business Processes:

• Example projects include UCOP Benefits Re-Engineering

Under Flexibility, Lynn cited the following points and themes in explaining criteria for proposing project priority:

• Projects shouldn't entail a process requiring 3 years of planning and 5 years of implementation
• Projects should focus on what they're supposed to do- improve performance
• Projects should address security
• Projects should be adaptable to change

Brainerd asked how "people" will respond to electronic medium. Lynn replied that people will be given a variety of communication approaches, e.g., telephone/ivr, kiosks, and that such systems will have to be easy-to-use. However, he acknowledged that roughly 25% of the population is keyboard-phobic.

Walton noted the need for people to run processes during off-hours; this would better facilitated by ivr systems, for example.

Owen referenced campus concerns about "being forced" into systems. Lynn noted that better coordination will have to be done for HR projects than was done for financial system projects.

Dolgonas asked about the ESTF Policy Committee's perspective on project priority. Lynn responded that all Planning Committee projects should be assigned a priority of High, Medium, or Low. Further, according to his understanding of Kennedy's position, funding shouldn't be a concern at this point. Lastly, there is no preset percentage for projects that are defined as High or Medium or Low; however, it would be obviously be inadequate for all projects simply to be defined as High.

Allison noted that there are a variety of "communities" within the University.

Owen asked about end-user empowerment. Lynn responded that that should be balanced against other project objectives.

Dolgonas proposed developing a web-based storyboard that would assist the project report, by serving a complementary function. It would demonstrate sample projects benefitting an employee and might help generate enthusiasm for projects. Brainerd supported the idea and suggested that it demonstrate/support the visions of the ESTF.

Dolgonas asked for clarification of new project categories that were technically or architecturally-based.

Brainerd suggested adding a new column for project beneficiaries.

Allison suggested adding a new project category for technical infrastructure.

Walton asked the Policy Committee to support the position that one-third of workstations should be upgraded each year. Lynn suggested that such a ppolicy was not within the jurisdiction of the Policy Committee, but suggested that such a statement could be somehow included, though not worded as an official mandate or requirement.

Dolgonas cited the paperless objectives raised at the last ESTF Policy Committee meeting, including the year 2000 as the target completion date for "elimination."

Allison asked for clarification as to where this objective would be applied and suggested that the objective should be restated to allow for documented exceptions.

In reference to elimination of paper checkstock as an example, Ogren noted that about 70% is the ceiling at which direct deposit usage is utilized. O'Neill raised concerns over federal and state tax laws. Walton noted that the approach should be to "sell" rather than "force" the idea.

Ogren suggested that paperless objectives should be more aggressively encouraged in new applications.

Dolgonas recapped the group's position by stating that it should be added to the project list, appropriately reworded, with a target date of the new millennium.

Brainerd reported that UCSD has 2 sessions currently scheduled: 1 for this week and 1 for next week.

Ogren reported that UCLA has completed scheduling 1 session and hopes to have 2 more, ideally completing everything before the next ESTF Planning Committee meeting in mid-March.

Dolgonas suggested a simple priority value system of H for High Priority, M for Medium Priority, and L for Low Priority.

Group consensus was reached that those projects that are already underway or scheduled for maintenance should be given a priority of "X" (maintenance). Lastly, it was agreed that projects that should be addressed by each campus/lab should be given a rating of "C."

Morissette said that these should still be included on the final project report, though they are already underway.

Garretson suggested that they be included in a separate appendix of the report.

Brainerd asked if there was any negative financial impact for projects already "in the queue." Dolgonas responded that his understanding of the Policy Committee's position is that the operating assumption is that funding for ESTF projects will not negatively affect existing projects.

Owen noted the difficulty of assigning project priorities, particularily in light of potential conflicts between various "groups."

Morissette suggested those projects that support the following objectives should be assigned a High Priority value:

• data integrity improvement
• earlier opportunity to enter data
• electronic medium usage
• streamline processing

Ogren suggested adding the following criteria as well for High Priority projects:

• things that would make an impact quickly
• things that would go beyond just central offices, especially in light of the greater impact of staffing shortages (beyond central offices)

Dolgonas concluded by recapping the following:

• data is entered at earliest operational point to support people-centric objective
• synchronization of systems and data
• helping departments
• quick visible projects that still satisfy original ESTF objectives

Dolgonas cited the likelihood of having a joint ESTF Policy/Planning Committee meeting in mid-April in light of where the Task Force currently stands in its schedule.

Dolgonas asked for any additional recommendations to the last draft of the Potential Projects report.

Ogren suggested an academic dossier projects that would benefits Academic departments.

Dolgonas noted that the "paperless" objective discussed earlier should also be included.

Copies of "final" campus report from DV were distributed to all Committee members.

Garretson forwarded latest IR updates to Min.

Other campuses still owing final versions were requested to finalize their reports.

Allison distributed a UCSC training analysis document to all committee members titled "'Hidden Cost' Considerations for New Systems Implementation (Based on the PPS Experience at UCSC)." She noted that this document addresses the perspective from trainers, not trainees. Further, whether a small or large campus, training development resources are a general constant. She also noted that such activities take away resources, e.g., time, normally spent on "regular" duties. It was lastly noted that when assessing such reports, attention should be paid towards distinguishing fixed versus variable costs.

The next Planning Committee meeting will be held in a hotel conference room near LAX on Friday, 03/14/97, from 9:30AM - 3:00PM.