rrp administrative software project it governance research subcommittee meeting november 17, 2011

RRP Administrative Software Project

IT Governance Research Subcommittee Meeting

November 17, 2011

Research Resource Program

Julie A. Auger

• Role: Strategic Planning for support of shared research operations

• Responsibility for development of a common administrative support structure for campus-wide core facilities

– Strategies for consolidation and coordination

– Financial management

– Core staff career tracks and mentoring

– Specialized IT support for cores

Executive Director, Research Resource ProgramUniversity of California San Francisco

June 2010 to present

2001 -2010 University of Chicago, Executive Director, Shared Research OperationsDevelopment of a centralized administrative support structure for campus-wide core facilities

1993-2001 University of Chicago, Director, Immunology Applications Core FacilityFlow cytometry, immunohistochemistry and monoclonal antibody production cores

1985-1993 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Director, Flow Cytometry Core


Business Initiative

3


RRP Administrative Tool Business Initiative(grass roots development)

UCSF Core facilities provide critical services and equipment access to the research community but lack a standard administrative tool resulting in:

• Lost research time to administrative and accounting tasks

• Dependency on manual processes for business critical tasks

• Lack of real time insight into grant usage

• Lost revenue due to grant balancing

• Lack of visibility into equipment utilization

These obstacles affect Cores’ ability to provide services in an effective, cost-efficient manner. They also hinder the ability to analyze Core needs across campus.


UCSF’s Shared Resources return high value

• More than 85 active core labs @ UCSF

• Provide cutting-edge technology and high-end instrumentation

• Expertise provided by the highly trained staff

• Cores fully understand the essential value they provide in support of UCSF Research

• Cores provide cost effective means to conduct high quality state-of- the art research

• Shared resources promote efficiencies and foster opportunity for researchers to also focus on mentoring new investigators


Core Facilities Sustainability

• The Research Community is dependent on the success of core labs

• Successful core facilities must continue to evolve:

– Develop new techniques

– Offer cutting-edge equipment

– Provide expertise

– Offer fair, consistent pricing

– Centralize assets/inventory for research opportunities

• Steady-state is counter to development of resources for scientific opportunity and technical growth


RRP Administrative Tool Business Initiative

Implement a campus wide Core administrative software solution to achieve:

• Increased service productivity through the reduction of administrative tasks in the cores

• Transparent access to core technologies and expertise through web-based service requests and electronic scheduling tools

• Automated usage tracking to reduce time spent billing and improve recharge revenue collection

• Automated invoicing to improve grant management and audit tracking

• Improved oversight of Core services to more effectively plan investments

• Improved end user experience through standardized solution that span multiple Cores


Project Approach

8


Project Charter and Approach

• Project Charter:– Identify an integrated administrative tool for Cores to

manage key processes including Core management, calendaring, usage tracking, invoicing and billing.

• Approach– Evaluate Core administrative software alternatives based on:

• Functionality – Requirements gathered from a selection of Cores to identify baseline needs

• Usability – Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) representing Core users, Core staff, and financial analysts evaluated products.

• Technical Evaluation– ITS evaluated vendors on platform, data security and other technical considerations

– Calculate Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) over 5 years to estimate the true cost of solution


Project Scope• Phase I

– Total Cost of Ownership presented is based on delivering the following :

– Core Management

– User Permission Management

– Estimate Generation

– Equipment Use Management

– Equipment Usage Tracking

– Work Order Management

– Automated Invoicing

– Automated Billing

– Reporting

• Out of Scope for Phase I– Automated reconciliation with FSA

– Inventory Management

– Data Repository

– Image Database

– Point of Sales Integration

– Device networking

– Data migration


Summary of Project Process• Task Force Established- Task force comprised of Core

representatives convened to establish Core scope of administrative needs. Deliverable was a recommendations document that included current administrative pain points and a "wish list" of functionality

• Formal Project Established- IT PMO translated task force recommendations to high level requirements using SME interviews and process mapping sessions with Cores to supplement information.

• Creation of Steering Committee- Establishment of steering committee comprised of key Directors, Core Managers and Financial Directors. Met every 2 weeks to review project status and receive input

• Creation of SME Committee- Establishment of SME group comprised of Core Managers, financial analysts, Core staff, and technical system analyst (Sindy Law, representing Cancer Center's Core Admin software). Met every 2 weeks to review project status and receive input


Task Force Membership

• Fred Schaufele, Chair, Diabetes Center

• Bill Hyun, co-Chair, Cancer Center LCA

• Michelle Arkin, Small Molecule Discovery Center

• Chris Barker, Gladstone Genomics Core

• Steven Hall, Sandler-Moore Mass Spec Facility

• Elizabeth Sinclair, Core Immunology Laboratory

• Susan O’Hara, CFO Radiology

• Nilo Mia, Director Budget & Resource Management

• Suzanne Murphy, Director Admin & Finance, OR

12


Steering Committee Members

13

• Susan O'Hara, SC co-chair, Radiology (SOM)

• Dan Pinkel, CCC (SOM)

• Michelle Arkin, Pharm Chem (SOP)

• Mini Kahlon, CTSI (SOM)

• Suzanne Murphy, OR (Campus)

• Elizabeth Sinclair, DEM (SOM)

• Caroline Miller, Gladstone


Subject Matter ExpertsCraig Gaines Radiology SOM adminTuhin Sinha Radiology SOM core serviceJon Rueter CTSI SOM adminKathy Burkart CCC SOM adminSindy Law CCC SOM admin/ITLily Hui CCC SOM adminSebastian Peck BIDC SOM core serviceKirsten Copren CCC SOM core serviceMike Lee EVCP Campus core serviceMario Moreno CTSI COM core serviceKurt Thorn Biochem SOM core serviceSteven Hall OB/GYN SOM core service Lorrie Epling DEM SOM core serviceTerence Ho DEM SOM core serviceStacey Morikawa-Wan Stem Cell SOM adminGabriella Hato Budget Mgmt Campus adminShigeshi "Shag" Yamamoto Inst Hum Gen SOM core serviceLisa Wolden Inst Hum Gen SOM adminWilliam Walantus Stem Cell SOM core servicePaul Phojanakong CCC SOM core serviceJane Gordon CCC SOM core serviceSnow Nguyen Diabetes Ctr SOM admin

14


Summary of Project Process (cont.)• RFP Process- Created RFP and established criteria for

evaluation. RFP response was weighted at 60% of the score, 30% on the test region, and 10% on Q&A sessions with the vendors.

– RFP Response - Created functionality matrix to weight requirements based on their priority and the vendor's ability to meet the need through standard functionality or customization.

– Technical Review/Q&A- Technical team evaluated each vendor's architecture, system security, data security, platform, and performance

– Test Region Evaluation- A subset of the SME group, representing various Core roles, participated in test region testing and provided evaluations for their standard products. Evaluations were broadly based on the ability of the product to meet the primary functional areas (e.g. Equipment Scheduling, Service Request processing, etc.) We weren't able to test anything with billing and invoicing of course, but the regions provided users with a sense of the product.

15


Summary of Project Process (cont.)

• Calculate Total Cost of Ownership over 5 years- Based on estimates provided by internal technical team to support each solution along with vendor bids, TCO is calculated for each vendor.

• Summarize Vendor Evaluations- Summarize evaluations and present to steering committee

• Make Recommendation - Project team provides recommended product to project sponsor (the Research Resources Program)

• Decision - Project sponsor determines winning product. If no suitable solution is identified, then a custom solution (open source or other) may be evaluated.


Vendor Evaluation SummaryFinal Scorecard Summary Results

17

Scorecard Participants: • Functionality & Sandbox Test Scores determined by UCSF Core Test team participants• Technical response, Implementation Proposal and Q&A interview sessions performed by ITS for

Technology assessment, Architectural Standards and Vendor Viability. • Weighted average score will be used along with total cost of ownership to rank vendors in Round II

Category: Functionality matrix

Technical Response

Proposal to implement

Q&A session

Sandbox score Total Score

Maximum Score 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Ranking Results

Vendor Solution

1 Vanderbilt 91 54 100 100 85 84

2 Pallas Athena 89 62 60 50 49 69

3 iLabs 96 77 0 50 17 62

4 eLabs 93 41 0 0 7 49


Total Cost of Ownership Summary

18


5 Year Core Admin Software Outlook: Overall Total Cost Estimates of Cores Software Solution Implementation, Support and Maintenance

19


Proposed Timeline for Vanderbilt options

September October November December January February March April May June

Contract Negotiations Pre Planning Activities

Gap Analysis

Pilot Roll Out to remaining Cores

Phase II Work


What’s Next?

21


Next Steps

• Develop implementation plan

– Pilot Strategy

– Core participation in pilot implementation

• Calculate ROI for Vanderbilt solution

– Establish ROI criteria

– Calculate efficiencies in terms of time and monies

22


ROI Approach• Return on Investment (ROI) for Cores based on

– Core Managers

• Single source for usage information

• More efficient collection and confirmation of charges

• Single source for operational management data

• Automated billing cycle

– Core Financial Analysts

• Automated collection of Core revenue data for recharge proposals

• File creation for journal entry upload

• Integration with WebLinks to check Fund DPA validity

– PIs/Core Users

• Decreased time in application request and training of new users

• Real time visibility into request status

23

Windows User

Include both qualitative and quantitative ROI paramters


ROI Discussion

• Increased Revenue

– Utilization

– Billing

– Scheduling

• Increased Productivity

– Labor Core Team Forces

– Increased Efficiency

– Research PI scheduling and timing

• Reduced exposures

– Compliance

– NIH, NSA, Grant guidelines

24

25

Questions?

rrp administrative software project it governance research subcommittee meeting november 17, 2011

Documents

research resource programjulie

lost research time

core technologies

core needs

support of ucsf research

art research shared

active core labs

standard administrative