Effort Reporting

A Collaborative Experience

Jon GoodDirector, Enterprise Systems Development

University of California, Office of the PresidentJon.Good@ucop.edu

Copyright Jon Good 2006. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish

requires written permission from the author.

The University of California

• 10 Campuses

• 5 Campus-affiliated Medical Centers

• UC Office of the President (UCOP)

• 207,000 Students

• 121,000 Employees

• Decentralized Business and IT Operations

MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

The University of California

San Francisco

Davis

Irvine

Los Angeles

Merced

Riverside

San Diego

Berkeley

Santa Barbara

Santa Cruz

UCOP

Sponsored Research at UC

• Volume of activity from grants and contracts for UC in FY 03-04:

Amount % Federal C&G $2.62 Billion 68.5 State Agencies $397 Million 10.4 Private $654 Million 17.1 Local Governments $153 Million 4.0

TOTAL $3.82 Billion 100%

What is Effort Reporting?

Contract / Grant Recording

Effort Reporting

Cost Sharing

Financial Reporting

Progress Reporting

Why is Effort Reporting Important?

• Risk Exposure (You know who you are): – One university received audit disallowances related to

problems with effort reporting of $5.5 Million on a grants and contract base of $325 Million in FY01-02

– Another university returned $ 4.1 Million to the federal government to settle a number of charging issues, including effort reporting

– Yet another university paid a total of $2.1 Million to settle the NIH salary limitation disallowance for the period 7/1/95 through 6/30/02

Objectives for a New ERS

• Replace 1982-vintage paper based• Achieve Uniformity of Effort Reporting Across

UC• Support of Good Business Practices:

– Meeting fiduciary and stewardship responsibilities– Maintaining Credibility with Funding Agencies,

External Donors and Constituent Groups– Facilitating user convenience and responsiveness– Encouraging active participation by faculty and staff

required to complete an Effort Report

Project Evolution

• Initiation– 2001 – Controllers Identify Need for New Effort Reporting

Process• The First Attempt:

– Early 2002 – RFP Process Started– March 2003 – RFP Process Abandoned – Too Expensive

(estimated $8M-$10M total software and campus implementation costs)

• The Second Attempt:– June 2003 – Campus-based initiative begins with Requirements

Phase– March 2004 – Funding commitment for development phase

obtained– June 2004 – Development phase begins– February 2006 – Planned base ERS release

First Attempt - Consultation

• One UCOP administrator put in charge of finding a vendor solution (bid), working with and obtaining consensus of campus representatives among:– Budget and Planning Officers– Controllers– Research Administrators– Extramural Funds Managers– Internal Auditors– Information Technology

What’s Wrong With These Requirements?

• The effort reporting system must enable the University to comply with OMB Circular A-21, Section J.8.

• The effort reporting system will require linkages with existing campus information systems. • Generate electronic certification reports (and hardcopy reports when needed) with calculated

effort percentages based on payroll distribution;• Identify responsible officials whose approval and/or certification is required, and distribute the

reports to the identified officials; • Send electronic notices and reminders to individual required to certify their effort and to

designated officials (e.g., department coordinator);• Identify instances where certified effort is less than the percentage of payroll shown for any

federal or federal flow-through award, and when approved, initiate a payroll transfer transaction;

• Initiate a new effort certification process if a retroactive payroll transfer occurs after the employee’s effort has been certified for the payroll period being adjusted;

• Recognize funds (e.g., from the National Institutes of Health) with salary cap restrictions, take the restrictions into account when calculating the charged payroll percentages, and provide additional administrative support to ensure compliance with the restriction;

• Quantify the value of cost shared effort by project;• Flag total sponsored effort exceeding a specified percentage for employees with non-

sponsored duties such as instruction and/or patient care;• Ability to create variety of ad-hoc reports based on data contained in the system.

Answer: Too much for a single slide. However, not much more was stated in the RFP!

First Attempt - Outcomes

• Scope of work was broad• Bids were high (> $3 Million)• Campus implementation costs were

estimated at $500K to $1.5M per campus• The only points of consensus:

– Everyone was reluctant to move forward with a vendor solution (bid process abandoned)

– Everyone involved had less than good feelings about the outcome

Challenges Moving Forward

• Establishing clear ownership for the project

• Re-establishing credibility for any process leading to a solution

• Moderating the attitude that a solution needed to be found quickly

• Narrowing the project scope

• Keeping everyone informed

The Foundation of the Collaboration

• In conjunction with key executives:– Identified an oversight and decision-making

structure– Selected a proven IT project approach– Started looking for sponsors

Sponsors Stepped Forward

San Francisco

Davis

Irvine

Los Angeles

Merced

Riverside

San Diego

Berkeley

Santa Barbara

Santa Cruz

UCOP

Sponsors Agreed to Major Steps

• Phase I – Requirements Definition

• Buy/Build Decision

• Obtain Funding for Phase II

• Phase II - Development

Sponsors Agreed to Phase I Consultative Structure

ERS Management Group (Sponsors)

Campus Department

Representatives

Requirements Committee

Campus Liason

The Start of Collaboration• All participants committed both time and

direct financial support to the project

• Management Group and Work Groups were to include broad representation

• Meeting notes formalized as a record of actions and key discussions

• Consultation

• Comprehensiveness

• Scope Control

Phase I Outcomes

• Clear and detailed requirements definition completed and widely reviewed

• Policy issues identified• Scope of requirements whittled down• Countless positive dialogues about objectives,

requirements, and process• Participants felt good about the process• Estimate for in-house development provided

Build/Buy Decision

• Decision to Build made quickly

• UCOP selected to develop system on behalf of campuses

Funding Model

• 5 Sponsoring Campuses and UCOP contribute equal shares towards requirements definition and development phases

• Additional voluntary resource contributions from all sponsors

Sponsors Agreed to Phase II Consultative Structure

ERS Management Group (Sponsors)

CIOs(from sponsor

campuses)

IT Project Manager

Campus Department

Representatives

Design & Programming

Staff

Requirements Committee

Campus Technical

Advisory Group

Campus Liason

Extra Consultation

• Campus Working Groups– Meet periodically– Reviews rollout plans– Provides feedback on prototypes and/or

design issues– Identifies local operational issues

Technical Project Management

• Modified Waterfall Approach

• Clear Project Plan

• Clearly identified deliverables

• Clear Resource Requirements

Base Effort Reporting System Scope

text

Legend

EffortReporting

System

PayrollData

Cost SharingData

UC Effort Reporting System Initiative Scope

Contracts & GrantsData

Project Description &

Effort Commitments

Anticipated Cost Share

Effort

Expensed Effort (Percent Time)

EffortReport

EffortReportData

Cer

tifi

cat

io

n a

nd

/

or

Rev

ised

A

ctu

al

Eff

ort

Federal Audit Results

Cost Sharing

System

F & A

Calcuations

data systemproduc

t

Existing Inputs Products

Campus Extraction

Address Different Technology Bases and Feeder Systems

San Francisco

Davis

Irvine

Los Angeles

Merced

Riverside

San Diego

Berkeley

Santa Barbara

Santa Cruz

UCOP

Technical Requirements

• Platform-independent for operation in all campus environments

• In other words, technical solution must be agnostic with respect to:– Web Server– Application Server– Data Base Management System

• Integrate with campus systems and services

Heavy Investment in Communications and Training

• Planning underway early ( > 6 months before base ERS release)

• Developed detailed grid of target audiences and messages for campus rollouts

• Developed communications strategy and detailed plan• Developed training strategy and detailed plan• Developing base communications and training materials

for campus customization and use• Piloting communications and training materials along

with the new system

Phase II – Where Are We Now?

• On target to release Base ERS Feb. 2006

• Campus rollout planning underway

• Training materials being finalized

• Under budget

Lessons Learned or Reaffirmed

• Plan carefully• Customers/Sponsors MUST be involved• Communication MUST be clear and continuous• ALL parties with a stake in the outcome must be involved

in the details• Listen carefully• Write everything down, document, communicate, publish• Be patient• Keep a constant eye on details • Establish and maintain a positive working relationship

What’s Really Different?

• Campus-based initiative for a common UC-wide business solution

• Collaboration among a subset of all campuses leading to a UC-wide solution

• Campuses funding the initiative

What’s Next?

• Getting non-sponsor campuses to buy in to the solution

• Keeping an eye open for other collaboration opportunities among the campuses

• Identified potential opportunities for similar collaborations among departments at UCOP

• Setting a new model for the way IT solutions are examined across UC, within individual campuses, within UCOP

Questions?

Jon.Good@ucop.edu