Campus Council for Information Technology
Monday, April 17, 2010
2203 Social Sciences and Humanities
Attendees: Joe Kiskis (Chair), Susan Catron, Adam Costanzo, Gary Ford, Helen Henry, Lori Lubin, Thomas
Pomroy, Bob Sams, Babette Schmitt, Dave Shelby, Pete Siegel
Excused: Mike Allred, Linda Behrens, Lora Jo Bossio, Janet Brown-Simmons, Joe Chatham, Bella Corbin, Bernd
Hamann, Niels Jensen, Tom Kaiser, Susan Keen, Michele Platten, Mark Rashid, Kelly Ratliff, Jean Richard
Shintaku, VanderGheynst, Previn Witana, Felix Wu
Guests: Jeff Barrett, Karen Hull, Bob Loessberg-Zahl, Morna Mellor
I. Welcome and approval of minutes – Joe Kiskis, CCFIT Chair
Joe Kiskis welcomed CCFIT members to the April meeting and asked members to send feedback on the March
minutes by the end of the week to email@example.com . [Note: No feedback was received. The minutes
were approved as submitted.]
II. Shared Service Centers – Karen Hull, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources
Karen Hull, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources, provided an update on the Shared Service Centers
(SSC) project within the Organizational Excellence initiative.
The goal of the SSC is to reduce administrative operating costs while maintaining high-level service delivery to the
campus. In order to reach this goal, it will be critical for the campus to change its current operations model. Areas
of focus for the SSC will be payroll, human resources, and the purchase to pay cycle (e.g. purchasing, accounts
payable, travel). The project will be focused on consolidating the service delivery model for the administrative
units, creating narrowly focused position descriptions in order to develop a work-force with a deep knowledge-base
and expertise in a smaller group of functions.
A SSC pilot will include administrative units such as Administrative and Resource Management (ARM),
Information and Educational Technology (IET), Offices of the Chancellor and Provost (OCP), Student Affairs, and
University Relations. As the project is informed by the pilot, Office of Research and additional units will be
included in the SSC. The long-term goal is to focus on the administrative units and will only include academic
units as they express interest.
The need to facilitate electronic workflow and develop technology-based solutions is a key driver for the SSC. A
Knowledge Management System (KMS) and a Case Management System (CSM) are two examples of technology
investments that will be important in streamlining processes and enabling the success of the SSC. In general, a
KMS has all the policies, procedures, and guidelines in a single database which creates an “intelligent search
engine.” Campus affiliates can search for information in a particular subject area and obtain access to resources in
much fewer steps due to the logical-connections the KMS makes based on the information requested. A Case
Management System (CSM) is a help desk tool that tracks reported issues and resolutions in a single database,
providing seamless access to customers’ issues, status updates, and resolutions. A time and attendance system that
feeds directly into PPS, and a workflow system are two additional technology tools that will be explored as the SSC
continues to develop. In addition, the SSC will under-go a significant amount of business process re-engineering
within select administrative functions to streamline processes and build cost-effectiveness and efficiencies.
The current high-level timeline for the SSC project includes a three-month engagement with ScottMadden
Consultants beginning on May 3rd. ScottMadden’s focus is on the design and implementation of shared service
centers with a key focus in technologies. Deliverables that can be expected through the consultants work include:
o Detailed project plan and schedule
o Project communication plan & materials
o Current state assessment
o Work activity survey
The implementation of the pilot is planned for fall 2010 (although it may shift to winter 2011), with Office of
Research and academic volunteers joining the SSC approximately the summer of 2011.
o Can the KMS and CMS systems be the same system? (The SSC is exploring options of the systems and
will be informed by the consultant’s recommendations. Some KMS and CMS systems are the same, but
not always. Additional tools the SSC is looking into are a workflow system, and a time reporting system.
For workflow, the SSC is exploring Kuali Rice as one of the options, through collaboration with IET).
o Will these systems be provided by a vendor, through community source, or by local development? (It is
unclear at this time, but as the recommendations from the consultants develop, it will help inform the
campus on the appropriate approach).
o Can a CMS update the KMS? (There needs to be a strategy for how that would work. The goal of the SSC
is to provide efficient services. Currently, a significant amount of information is provided on campus web
pages, but there are still a high number of phone calls requesting information. One-on-one service delivery
is the most expensive type of service delivery. The goal is to provide as much self-help tools as possible to
reduce administrative costs, and provide consistent information to clients).
o If the campus decides to purchase a system(s), how long will the return on investment take? (That is a
difficult question to answer at this time. The SSC will be implemented in only half of the administrative
infrastructure on campus, and it is difficult to track departmental inefficiencies. It also depends on how
quickly we can implement the SSC, including the technology tools for encouraging streamlining of
processes. However, identifying the return on investment is a key component of the SSC. In general, SSC
have the potential of saving 50-60% of operating costs when technology investments are made).
It was recommended Hull provide an update to CCFIT mid-June to early July in order to inform the work of the
consultants. Due to the timing of the consultants’ engagement and the CCFIT end of year meeting on June 7th, it
was determined that the CCFIT Steering Committee would meet with Hull and the consultants at the June 14th
CCFIT Steering Committee meeting.
For additional questions or feedback on the Shared Service Centers and the work of the ScottMadden Consultants,
contact Karen Hull, firstname.lastname@example.org .
III. PPM 200-45 Quarterly Summary – Dave Shelby, Assistant Vice Provost, IET
Dave Shelby, Assistant Vice Provost, IET provided an in-depth overview of the first PPM 200-45 Quarterly
Summary report .
The report is an aggregate summary of nine projects from June 2009 to present time. As part of the review process,
CCFIT and the IT Administrative Roadmap Conveners will review the quarterly reports and provide feedback to
the Vice Provost of IET which will be provided to the Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors. To view previous
and current projects under review through the PPM 200-45 process, see: http://admincomputing.ucdavis.edu/ .
o Included in the quarterly summary report is a high-level timeline to help better understand the timing and
associated impacts the projects may have on campus users.
o The review process includes a technical approach to help understand the variety of programming platforms
used on campus which will help to inform the development of campus-wide application development
standards. The Software Standards Workgroup (SSWG) is making good progress on developing campus
programming standards. The development of standards provides a venue for interoperability of systems,
and the re-use of systems across campus units.
o Included in the PPM 200-45 toolkit is an IT security check-list for sponsors to better understand the
security considerations, requirements, and impacts to their projects.
o Can automatic updates be provided to those who have expressed interest in the PPM 200-45 submissions?
(The administrative computing website (http://admincomputing.ucdavis.edu/ ) doesn’t currently have this
functionality; however, there is work underway to move the site to the campus web Content Management
System (CMS). Once the site is in the web CMS there is a possibility to develop this functionality).
o A suggestion was made to add a “looking forward” section to the quarterly summary report (i.e. shared
service centers technologies) for campus groups to be aware of proposals that will be underway in the near-
It was recommended that a PPM 200-45 proposal (conceptual or project) be submitted for all technologies under
discussion by CCFIT. This will provide an informed discussion at CCFIT meetings on the goals, technologies, and
investments under consideration by campus units.
Joe Kiskis, Chair, CCFIT, commented that the summary report was nicely constructed and provided an excellent
overview of the proposals that have been submitted through the PPM 200-45 process. Kiskis stated that additional
discussions will continue on the input CCFIT would like to provide in their annual report on the PPM 200-45
process and quarterly report.
For additional questions and feedback on the PPM 200-45 process, or the quarterly summary report, contact Dave
Shelby, email@example.com .
IV. Gmail Pilot, Unified Communications, and the UC Email Task Force – Gabe Youtsey, Project Manager,
Gabe Youtsey, Project Manager, IET, provided an overview of the purpose, objectives, and timeline of all three
email-related projects that are currently underway and have a direct impact to the UC Davis community (see
The three email projects that are being explored are:
o Gmail Pilot Project - Evaluate Gmail as a possible replacement for the central campus email service
o Unified Email & Calendaring Workgroup -A review of unified email and calendaring options (e.g. campus
‘Xeda’ Exchange service)
o UC-Wide Email Task Force –Guidance for all UCs on replacing email services
[Update: On April 30, 2010, a joint announcement from Chair Joe Kiskis and Vice Provost Pete Siegel was issued
to the campus community announcing Siegel’s decision to no longer consider outsourcing email services for faculty
and staff, including to Google. This decision was based on extensive community consultation as well as a
campus assessment of the UC Electronic Communications Policy and increased privacy risks that had come to
light. Both the Academic Senate Committee on Information Technology and CCFIT concurred with this
Although outsourcing is no longer under consideration, the need to provide UC Davis with a more flexible and
effective central email system remains. As a next step, in coordination with the Academic Senate, a committee
will be established to identify essential campus email features and capabilities. Its discussions would be
informed by reports from the Gmail Assessment Committee, the Unified Communications Workgroup, and the
UC Email Task Force. All three initiatives, as well as the experience and perspectives of faculty and staff
involved in them, will be critical to defining a functional, reliable and secure email system for UC Davis.
Consultation with CCFIT will continue as this committee’s work progresses in the coming months.]
V. Brief updates – Joe Kiskis, Chair
o Second draft of Campus Vision Document – Joe Kiskis, Chair
Chair Kiskis announced that a new version of the campus vision document was now available (UC Davis:
A Vision of Excellence ), and added that CCFIT’s significant contributions helped inform the revised
document. Additional feedback is still possible on the current draft through May 14th. Kiskis encouraged
CCFIT members to review the current document, and contact him directly (firstname.lastname@example.org ) if
anyone would like to offer further comments.
o IET Budget Reductions: Context, Strategy, and Impacts – Pete Siegel, Vice Provost, IET
VP Siegel stated that he presented IET’s budget presentation to CODVC on April 13th. Siegel thanked
CCFIT for the valuable comments and suggestions provided at the March CCFIT meeting. The final
version of the presentation can be viewed at: http://vpiet.ucdavis.edu/Budget_Reductions_04.2010.pdf .
o Ed Tech Subcommittee faculty survey results – Lori Lubin and Susan Keen, Ed Tech Subcommittee Co-
This discussion was deferred to next month’s meeting due to time constraints.
The meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m.