Referencing the draft of the EMPLOYEE SYSTEMS TASK FORCE PLANNING FRAMEWORK document, dated 11/21/96, M. Stuart Lynn recapped the following:

• Goals (see pp. 5-6)
• Anticipated Benefits (see pp. 6-7)
• Principles (see pp. 7-9)
• People-Centered Systems (see pp. 7-8)
• Policy Committee Responsibilities (see pp. 9-10)
• Planning Committee Responsibilities (see p.10)
• Key Policy Issues (see pp. 10-11)

A member of the Planning Committee asked if there were any changes for the Planning Committee to incorporate into their work as a result of what was discussed at the morningâs Policy Committee meeting. The answer was that other than amplifying the directives already cited in the framework document, only one new task was defined: informally or formally, Planning Committee members should pursue at their respective local campuses/labs, discussion of the ESTF issues to gain preliminary feedback expeditiously, in light of the tight ESTF schedule.

Lynn mentioned that in many cases we need 80% solutions in order to move our agenda along in an effective and timely manner.

The draft UCOP Benefits Systems Re-Engineering document, dated 12/05/96, was referenced in regards to controls. It was agreed that existing controls may be removed and new systems controls may be added with ultimate objectives of improving controls to facilitate better effectiveness and service; a people-centric focus should be followed.

In response to a question from a Planning committee member, Lynn responded that funding issues were not addressed in terms of having a current dollar limit already assigned, but there is already a recognition that this project will likely require significant funding. Presenting the ESTF plan should set the stage for the next steps of securing more clearly defined funding needs as well as confirming project direction and priorities.

Before the Policy Group departed, Lynn proposed the following topics for a plan which might constitute the report of the Task Force:

• Key Recommendations
• Overview and Background
• Charge and Goals
• Principles
• Key Policy Issues
• Proposed Projects
• Benefits
• Priorities
• Schedules
• Resources
• Responsibilities and Dependencies
• Alternatives

Among the projects, activities, and issues presented were the following:

• three campuses and LBL had purchased PeopleSoft HR software, one primarily to meet needs for position control. One campus plans to use the PeopleSoft system for staff and academic history and ultimately, for applicant tracking;
• four campuses and LBL have purchased Resumix for applicant tracking. Utilization and/or deployment varied considerably from campus to campus. It was noted that if all campuses had purchased this product at the same time, considerable savings might have accrued to the University;
• one campus reported on plans to develop a Web-based system for employees to access their records for various functions and pieces of data such as determining their check amounts in advance of actual receipt;
• several campuses reported problems related to a lack of personnel history or the difficulty of accessing history. One campus reported concerns with the quality of history data;
• a number of campuses reported on the need for a graphical user interface for the Payroll/Personnel system;
• nearly all campuses reported the double-edged sword of developing and maintaining "shadow systems", i.e., there is an unfortunate level of duplication of effort as well as data and also, data inconsistency;
• reference was made to a UCOP white paper planned for release in February Î97 focusing on Reducing the Number of Pay Cycles;
• one campus reported on plans for direct employee update of records;
• one campus reported on a Web-based position requisition application;
• one campus reported on an online staff employment application;
• one campus reported on the availability of carrier directories online;
• one campus reported on employee completion of insurance forms online;
• a number of campuses reported on development of Payroll/Personnel data warehouses to meet departmental reporting needs;
• one campus reported on difficulties with blocking of access to UCRS retiree data;
• UCOP reported on progress on a workgroup studying title codes, and systems support for title code updates given the HRMI;
• one campus reported on an application for enrollment in training courses;
• one campus reported on development of a medical compensation plan module of the Payroll/Personnel system;
• one campus reported on publication of local salary scales and market data;
• one campus cited the lack of good support for effort reporting and cost sharing;
• a number of campuses reported on ad hoc systems and the need for more integrated systems;
• UCOP reported on the enhancements of the Benefits IVR system to include a Web capability and the addition of insurance enrollment for new hires.

It was clarified that Focus groups would not have "thumbs up/thumbs down" decision authority, but would still be an important source of input. Further, organizations such as CAUSE and other professional assocations in various areas were cited as good sources for such input. It was also noted that "out of the box" thinkers would not necessarily be "outsiders", i.e., there is no shortage of such thinkers within UC. Other possible organizations to contact included ABOG, Academic Senate, and Staff Assemblies. Further discussion on use of Focus groups was deferred until the next meeting.

Recommendations for how questions and/or issues are raised was also discussed. These included "carefully wording" any questions, reviewing previously developed documents to avoid duplication of effort, e.g., HR list of needs from a prior committee, and contacting people both formally and informally.

Referencing the latest draft of the Employee Systems Initiatives document, dated December 1996, discusssions were initiated in the following areas:

• a graphical user interface for the Payroll/Personnel system is likely to involve a web interface
• Policy Committee support for a logically centralized demographic database that would be an independent system that is updated or "owned" directly by the employee, i.e., not "owned" by Payroll, HR, Benefits applications. Advantages cited in favor of independence included less political contention over data ownership between the various applications, e.g., Payroll, HR, Benefits; disadvantages cited included potential lack of controls, e.g., data quality edits. Further, all of these applications should facilitate easy, yet secure inter-application interfaces; the centralized demographic database could further support easily accessible, yet secure, applications such as phone directories or inter-campus library patronage. There was overall support for this, however, there were concerns expressed over the physical location of the database.
• Policy Committee interest in a Universitywide HR system initiative; there were concerns over local requirements being effectively addressed under such a model. Points were raised citing the need to balance uniformity and cost-effectiveness when considering universitywide and campuswide discussions.

Development of the ESTF Plan document was discussed at a general level. The basic approach is for the Planning Committee to propose initial drafts for Policy Committee review. Collectively, the full ESTF would present the Plan document to Senior Vice President Kennedy.

The possibility was raised of using sub-groups to complete work in specific areas and to define or review project ideas. Further discussion was deferred until the next Planning Committee meeting.

As the list of recommended projects is developed, acknowledgement of both local implementation costs and training issues should be factored into timetables and required resources.

Each campus was asked to review the 1988 report of academic and staff personnel needs as a beginning point to establish unmet, Universitywide HR needs. Feedback on this review is due at the next committee meeting.

The Policy Committee discussed whether the Payroll system should be more standardized and possibly run centrally. For example, one thought is that some local changes may be generally desirable and therefore should be considered for incorporation into the base system, reducing local variations. To help assess these issues, each campus representative was asked to determine the local campus changes made to the base system. This would include: a short description of the reason for the change, e.g., at UCSD one change might be to accomodate a local account structure; and an assessment of the scope of the change, i.e., major, significant or minor. Campus members were asked to bring this information to the next meeting of the committee.

The Policy Committee also discussed the need for easy interface between Research Administration systems and payroll data. Consideration as to how to achieve this needs to be considered by the Planning Committee.

The next Planning Committee meeting will be held in the Oakland Kaiser Center on Friday, 01/10/97, from 9AM - 3PM; date, time, and room confirmation will follow.

The following additional key policy issue, one or two page documents, prepared at the request of and for discussion at the Policy Committee meeting, were distributed for subsequent reading/discussion; these supplemented the information contained in the framework document:

• Separation of Payroll and HR
• Unified HR Direction
• Divergence of Payroll System
• Central Demographic Database
• Relationship of HR/Benefits Reorganization

• UC Business and Finance Bulletin IS-2, Guidelines for Data Requests to Campuses by Administrative Units of the Office of the President, dated 02/01/85
• GUIDELINES FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY PAYROLL SYSTEM, dated 12/01/85
• University Policy on Administrative Information Systems, dated 01/26/84

By the next committee meeting, 01/10/97:

• committee members should have updated their respective local offices with the latest information available concerning ESTF activities and have begun the process of soliciting feedback;
• committee members should be prepared to present preliminary campus HR needs, referencing the 1988 report of personnel needs
• committee members should be prepared to report back on local campus payroll changes made to the base system: includes a short description of the reason for the change; and an assessment of the scope of the change.