Rrp administrative software project
1 / 25

RRP Administrative Software Project - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

RRP Administrative Software Project. IT Governance Research Subcommittee Meeting November 17, 2011. Julie A. Auger. Executive Director, Research Resource Program University of California San Francisco June 2010 to present. Role: Strategic Planning for support of shared research operations

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'RRP Administrative Software Project' - adanne

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Rrp administrative software project

RRP Administrative Software Project

IT Governance Research Subcommittee Meeting

November 17, 2011

Julie a auger
Julie A. Auger

Executive Director, Research Resource Program

University of California San Francisco

June 2010 to present

  • 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

  • 2001 -2010 University of Chicago, Executive Director, Shared Research Operations

    • Development of a centralized administrative support structure for campus-wide core facilities

  • 1993-2001 University of Chicago, Director, Immunology Applications Core Facility

    • Flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry and monoclonal antibody production cores

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

Rrp administrative tool business initiative grass roots development
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

  • Dependencyon 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
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
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
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 charter and approach
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
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
    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
    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

    Steering committee members
    Steering Committee Members

    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

    Summary of project process cont
    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.

    Summary of project process cont1
    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 summary final scorecard summary results
    Vendor Evaluation SummaryFinal Scorecard Summary Results

    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

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

    What s next
    What’s Next?

    Next steps
    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

    Roi approach
    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

    Roi discussion
    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