UW Strategic Roadmap for Administrative Systems

Draft Uni v ersi ty of W ashi ngton
Strategi c Roadmap for Informati on Management & Admi ni strative
Systems
Page 1
University of
Washington
Strategic Roadmap
For Information Management
and Administrative Systems
December 2008

Systems
Page 2

Systems
Page 3
Table of Contents
ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT............................................................................................6
THE NEED FOR A STRATEGIC ROADMAP.............................................................8
The Challenge .................................................................................................................................................................8
A Collaborative Process.............................................................................................................................................10
Roadmap Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................11
GUIDING PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................12
Background and Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................12
The Guiding Principles ..............................................................................................................................................12
Information ................................................................................................................................................................12
Governance and Investment ...................................................................................................................................13
Solutions and Processes...........................................................................................................................................13
ROADMAP INITIATIVES..............................................................................................13
Information for Decision Making............................................................................................................................14
Replace the Base...........................................................................................................................................................19
Redesign Processes ......................................................................................................................................................27
Enhance and Renew Systems ...................................................................................................................................30
Prioritize and Make Decisions .................................................................................................................................32
ROADMAP ACTION PLAN .........................................................................................36
Information for Decision Making............................................................................................................................38
Replace the Base...........................................................................................................................................................39
Redesign Processes ......................................................................................................................................................40
Enhance and Renew Systems ...................................................................................................................................41
Prioritize and Make Decisions .................................................................................................................................42

Systems
Page 4
REPLACE THE BASE ALTERNATIVES AND APPROACHES...........................42
Four Alternatives .........................................................................................................................................................42
What Others Are Doing .............................................................................................................................................44
When and How Long?................................................................................................................................................50
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................54
Next Steps.......................................................................................................................................................................54
Workforce Planning....................................................................................................................................................55
Updates to the Roadmap............................................................................................................................................56
Invest in the Future .....................................................................................................................................................56
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................58
I. CURRENT STAFFING ALLOCATIONS FOR INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS ............................................58
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................58
Staffing Support for Information Management and Administrative Systems ..........................................59
Staff Allocation by Activity Type .........................................................................................................................59
Overview of Functional Areas ...............................................................................................................................60
Staff Allocation by Functional Area .....................................................................................................................61
Staffing Support for Technical Infrastructure ....................................................................................................70
II. HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF UW INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................73
Prior Information Management and Administrative Systems Strategy.......................................................73
IS Futures Task Force ................................................................................................................................................75
Office of Information Management ........................................................................................................................76
III. THE STRATEGIC ROADMAP PROJECT: DEVELOPING THE
ROADMAP ......................................................................................................................79
Project Objectives and Scope ...................................................................................................................................79

Systems
Page 5
Project Approach.........................................................................................................................................................81
Project Planning........................................................................................................................................................81
Perform Discovery ...................................................................................................................................................81
Document Current State ..........................................................................................................................................82
Research Trends........................................................................................................................................................82
Define the Vision......................................................................................................................................................83
Analyze the Gap .......................................................................................................................................................83
Develop Action Plan ................................................................................................................................................83
Project Structure .........................................................................................................................................................83
Project Phase Results..................................................................................................................................................85
Discovery Process ....................................................................................................................................................85
Summary of Themes ................................................................................................................................................86
Current State Assessment........................................................................................................................................88
Summary of Current State Findings......................................................................................................................88
Funding for IM/AS...................................................................................................................................................92
Vision .........................................................................................................................................................................93
Initiatives and Action Plan ........................................................................................................................................98
IV. CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................................................100

Systems
Page 6
About This Document
The University of Washington Strategic Roadmap for Information
Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap) sets forth a long-
term vision and comprehensive plan for the future of UW information
management and administrative systems.
This Document
This document is the official printed version of the Roadmap. This
document covers:
 Why the UW needsastrategicplanfor informationmanagementandadministrative
systems (IM/AS).
 How the Roadmapwas developed.
 GuidingprinciplesforRoadmapimplementation.
 Five recommendedRoadmapinitiatives andthe actionplansforimplementingthem.
 Alternativesandapproachesforthe “Replace the Base”initiative.Thisinitiative will
involve significantcommitmentandinvestment,andsoalternativesandapproachesare
discussedindepth.
 Nextsteps,includingshort-termpriorities,the needforworkforce planning,how
updateswill be made tothisplan,andwhya fundingmodel isneededtosupport
ongoingefforts.
Appendices
The report has four appendices that cover:
 CurrentstaffingallocationsforIM/AS
 Historyand contextof UW IM/AS
 A detaileddiscussionof the strategicroadmapprojectandreportdevelopment
 List of contributorstothe Roadmapproject
On the Web
The Strategic Roadmap Web site contains all this information, and it
provides more detail. See:

Systems
Page 7
https://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/index.html
Contact
For additional information, please contact the OIM Communications &
Outreach group (oimcom@u.washington.edu).

Systems
Page 8
The Need for a Strategic Roadmap
In 2006, the University of Washington’s Provost charged a special task
force with taking a comprehensive look at the University’s critical
information technology needs. After three months of intensive
investigation, the IS Futures Task Force found that the University of
Washington (UW) did not have a clear vision or long-term strategy for the
administrative systems that support its core business operations or for
the information management essential for running a complex enterprise.
Without a clear vision and strategy, there was no institutional context for
prioritizing information management and administrative systems projects
or allocating resources, and no framework for understanding how
individual requests would help meet the UW’s long-term needs.
The University of Washington Strategic Roadmap for Information
Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap) was developed in
response to the task force findings.
The Roadmap sets forth a long-term vision for the future of UW
information management and administrative systems aligned with the
institution’s business goals and priorities. It provides a strategic
framework for prioritizing projects, making decisions, and allocating
resources. It outlines an action plan with five key initiatives to meet the
enormous range of challenges the UW faces in providing administrative
systems and information to support a large, diverse, and global
institution.
THE CHALLENGE
The University of Washington is one of the nation’s premier research
institutions, receiving more federalresearch funding than any other

Systems
Page 9
public institution of higher education in the country. Yet the
administrative systems that support its business operations are among
the oldest and most archaic of its peer institutions. As a result, the
University is facing the following critical challenges:
 The UW’s legacy systems no longer support this institution’s 21st
century business and information needs. The University’s 26-to-34-
year-old systems have limited functionality and are becoming
increasingly difficult to upgrade. Operational inefficiencies are
negatively impacting the productivity of faculty and staff at every level
of this institution. Departments and units have developed hundreds
of redundant shadow systems to compensate for missing
functionality, at considerable cost and effort.
 University faculty and staff cannot get the information they need to
support effective management and decision-making. Even basic
information—such as student headcount by major or financial
resources for a given fiscal period—takes an extraordinary effort to
obtain. Lack of institutional definitions for data as basic as “student
FTE” and “faculty FTE” undermines the accuracy of the information
and makes cross-institutional comparisons problematic.
 The UW has consciously underinvested in its administrative systems
and fallen behind its peers. Of a peer group of 30 research/doctorate
institutions, only one has a financial system older than the UW’s, only
two have older student systems, and only four have older HR/payroll
systems. (See UW Peers on page 31.)
The Roadmap outlines a plan to address these challenges and to bring
the University’s administrative systems and information management
services into the 21st century.

Systems
Page 10
A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
Development of the Roadmap was an intensive, six-month collaborative
effort involving more than 170 stakeholders across the University.
The project was initiated in the fall of 2007 in response to the IS Futures
Task Force and at the request of the Board of Deans and Chancellors, the
Information Management Advisory Committee, and other key
stakeholders. It culminated in March 2008 with the completion of the
Roadmap action plan. The project was coordinated by the Office of
Information Management, with the Information Management Advisory
Committee serving as the project’s steering committee. Executive
sponsors included Provost Phyllis Wise and Vice President for UW
Technology Ron Johnson.
Teams of stakeholders representing schools, colleges, campuses, medical
centers, deans, faculty, researchers, and central administrators delved
into the detail of the University’s current systems and processes,
evaluating challenges and identifying risks. Divided into task groups, they
focused on three key areas: administrative systems, information
management, and governance.
The task groups analyzed the current state of the UW’s systems and
processes. They developed a vision of where the University needs to be in
ten years and outlined action plans for getting there. Their work was
overseen by the Roadmap Working Team, which included task group
leads and other business leaders. The Roadmap Working Team integrated
task group recommendations and produced the final recommended
action plan. (Details about the Roadmap project and process are available
in Appendix III. A full list of contributors is available in Appendix IV.)

Systems
Page 11
The result of this work is the first-ever comprehensive view of the
University’s current information management and administrative systems’
(IM/AS) challenges and an action plan for moving the University forward.
ROADMAP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Roadmap recommends five key initiatives to fundamentally transform
the University’s business operations. A detailed description of each
initiative is provided later in this document. (See Roadmap Initiatives on
page 9.)
 Information for Decision Making: Develop the common data
definitions, infrastructure, tools, integration framework, and training
necessary to provide access to accurate, useful information and
analysis.
 Replace the Base: Replace the UW’s aging legacy administrative
systems with modern, flexible systems that can keep pace with
evolving business needs. Legacy systems to be replaced include
finance, budget, procurement, human resources, payroll, and student
administration.
 Redesign Processes: Design consistent, streamlined business
processes that leverage new technologies, achieve increased
operational efficiencies, and help to manage change. Process redesign
will happen hand-in-hand with all system replacement and upgrade
projects.
 Enhance and Renew Systems: Invest in ongoing enhancement,
development, and technology renewalof core administrative systems
to keep pace with changing business needs.
 Prioritize and Make Decisions: Develop a transparent decision-making
process and a mature portfolio management framework that enables
the UW to set institutional priorities, make strategic choices, and

Systems
Page 12
maximize its investments. Provide the support structures necessary to
enable collaborative projects across UW units.
Guiding Principles
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
An important part of the planning effort was the development of a series
of Guiding Principles that articulate key values and directions that will
guide the implementation of the Roadmap and future IM/AS decision
making. The Guiding Principles provide a vital framework for all levels of
decision making about IM/AS strategies, directions, and implementation
across the University.
The Guiding Principles were developed by the Information Management
Advisory Committee (I-MAC) with input from stakeholders involved in the
Roadmap effort. The development included a review of guiding principles
from peer institutions and of relevant literature on the topic. A final
version was adopted by I-MAC in May 2008. The Guiding Principles will
be evaluated annually as part of the Roadmap review process to ensure
they remain relevant and meaningful.
The Guiding Principles cover three areas: Information, Governance and
Investment, and Solutions and Processes.
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Information
 We will support a culture of inquiry and information-based decision-
making.
 We will maintain an environment of open information sharing.

Systems
Page 13
Governance and Investment
 We will make investment decisions based upon advancing the UW’s
strategic goals.
 We will ensure that our decision making process engages our
stakeholders and maximizes our investments.
 We will provide for sustainability and continuous improvement.
 We will accept a reasonable levelof risk and balance risk with
anticipated benefit.
Solutions and Processes
 We will consider holistic solutions that encourage business process
improvement.
 We will invest in appropriate solutions rather than commit to a single
technology, vendor, or approach.
 We will place a priority on interoperable solutions.
 We will develop shared solutions for common needs and support local
solutions for specialized needs.
Roadmap Initiatives
The Roadmap recommends five key
initiatives (see diagram at left) to meet
the University’s business and
information needs into the future.
Together, these initiatives address the
key challenges the University faces in
delivering information for decision
making and supporting its business
operations.

Systems
Page 14
These initiatives build upon one another, and each is essential to the
success of the whole. Progress must be made on each to develop the
modern, flexible systems and processes needed to support the UW’s
future business operations. The goals and rationale for each initiative are
described in this section.
INFORMATION FOR DECISION MAKING
Continue to develop the consistent data
definitions, tools, infrastructure, integration
framework, and training necessary to provide
access to accurate, useful information for
decision making.
Key benefits:
 Provide easier access to information for
decision making
 Integrate data across subject areas
 Provide tools and training so users can
ask questions, analyze results, and
produce meaningful reports
One of the leading concerns raised by stakeholders during the Roadmap
process was the lack of access to timely, accurate information for
decision making. At every level of the University, people do not have
access to the information they need to manage effectively. Even basic
information—such as student headcount by major, number of full-time
faculty in a given school or college, or financial resources for a given

Systems
Page 15
fiscal period—is extraordinarily difficult to obtain. Key challenges in this
area include:
 Lack of institutional definitions for commonly used data such as
student FTE or faculty FTE. This makes it difficult to track and
compare data across units, have a common understanding of what
the data means, or get common answers to basic questions.
 Lack of historical data makes it hard to track trends or perform
strategic analysis. There is limited ability to track people, money,
and space over time.
 Lack of integration across systems makes it challenging to develop a
holistic view of the information or track and analyze trends.
 Lack of access to central data at the unit level means that schools,
colleges, and departments cannot perform critical analysis needed to
manage their businesses. To compensate for this and other
inadequacies, units have developed hundreds of shadow systems
that contain duplicative and often conflicting data. These shadow
systems raise serious security concerns, since security access
policies are inconsistent and not well understood across units, and
knowledge and expertise about computing security is uneven.
This initiative includes a number of critical projects to provide access to
data and to the tools and training necessary for units to be able to
interpret the data, perform analysis, and produce meaningful reports.
Projects also focus on building the necessary support infrastructure.
It is important to note that the Roadmap’s other initiatives are also critical
to achieving the goals of this initiative. In particular, the Replace the Base
initiative is important because the UW’s current systems do not capture

Systems
Page 16
some critical information, and these systems will have to be replaced
before the University can have access to all of the information it needs.
The Information for Decision Making projects fall under three major
action areas: Information Intelligence & Delivery, Information Integration
& Design, and Information Infrastructure & Definitions. What follows is an
overview of proposed projects under each action area.
Information Intelligence & Delivery
Projects under this action area include:
 Continue to enhance business intelligence tools that enable users to
analyze and summarize data and produce meaningful reports. These
tools also enable users to see and analyze data at a detailed level.
 Standardize how institutional data is produced and reported by
continuing the work started by the "Deans’ Top 5 Questions" project.
This will ensure that data is being collected and reported
consistently across the institution. The Deans’ Top 5 Questions
project focused on answering the five most critical data questions as
identified by deans, including:
o Student headcount for a given school/college
o Student credit hours for a given school/college
o Faculty headcount by appointment type
o Faculty FTE by appointment type
o Permanent operating budget by GOF, DOF, and RCR
An additional goal of the project was to create a repeatable process
for continuing to define institutional data.
 Provide an enterprise portal and search tools so that users can have
easy access to all the information, tools, and resources they need in
a single place.

Systems
Page 17
 Create and deliver custom training programs for analysts,
developers, and end users covering best practices in data access and
use. This will ensure that users understand the data they are using
and that developers can avoid redundant development work by using
shared tools and services.
Information Integration & Design
 Provide shared tools for departments and units that they can easily
extend and customize to support both enterprise and local
applications. This includes implementing workflow tools, a business
rules engine, and a message queuing infrastructure.
 Enable collaborative development efforts across the University. This
will allow units to see the functionality that has been developed by
other units, reuse it, or integrate it into a new application.
 Develop applications that support the consistent implementation of
security roles and authorization schemes across all systems. This will
allow the UW to establish consistent security rules and support single
sign-on to access multiple systems and reports.
 Acquire tools and provide training to business analysts including
business process modeling, data modeling, and Web services
modeling. This will support consistency and improve the quality of
business process design.
 Establish and promote communities of interest to help design
solutions that can work together.
Information Infrastructure & Definitions

Systems
Page 18
All of the Information for Decision Making projects will be supported by
the projects under the Information Infrastructure & Definitions action
area. Projects under this action area include:
 Develop common data definitions and make key common data
available to the enterprise. This will allow systems to be integrated
more easily and will improve the integrity of data reporting between
them. It also will enable people across the University to access
consistent, accurate data and compare data across units.
 Continue to expand the enterprise data warehouse including the
build-out of new subject areas. This will enable improved access to
data across subject areas and better data integration.
 Acquire an electronic document management and imaging system to
enable online access to business documents through an enterprise
portal. This will eliminate the need for multiple document copies,
reduce paper storage requirements, and support consistent records
retention policies.
 Develop policies, practices, standards, and guidelines for the
governance and management of information.
 Develop the necessary infrastructure to support access to integrated
data across subject areas.

Systems
Page 19
REPLACE THE BASE
Replace the UW’s aging legacy systems
with modern, flexible systems. Systems to
be replaced include finance, budget,
procurement, HR/payroll, and student
administration.
Key benefits:
 Provide modern, agile, and flexible
systems
 Improve operational efficiency
 Provide better information for
decision making
 Keep pace with changing business
needs
Why Replace the Base?
The University of Washington’s legacy systems are vital to the daily
operations of this institution, supporting the work of roughly 72,000
faculty, students, and staff. The workhorses of the University, these
systems store thousands of rules about the way the UW does business
and process hundreds of thousands of transactions a day. They provide
indirect, but nonetheless essential support to the University’s mission of
teaching, research, and public service. The systems:
 Pay employees $1.6 billion annually
 Receive and distribute $1.1 billion in research grants annually

Systems
Page 20
 Handle UW financial transactions, processing 1.45 million
transactions monthly
 Register students online, processing more than 500 transactions per
minute during peak times
 Retain the official academic records of 761,000 UW students—every
attendee since 1981
 Keep UW operations running, routinely handling more than 700,000
transactions daily with an average response time of under two
seconds
The University’s Aging Systems
The University’s systems date back to the early 1970s and 1980s when
this institution’s operating environment was substantially less complex
than it is today. They were designed to support the UW at a time when
the state provided the majority of its funding. Today, state funding
makes up less than 13 percent of the University’s $3 billion in annual
revenue. The largest source is grants and contracts that total about $1
billion per year. In addition, self-sustaining operations have grown
exponentially. This increasingly diversified funding base demands a more
sophisticated management approach. The UW’s systems are not keeping
up.
In fact, the University legacy systems are among the oldest and most
archaic of its peer institutions. Most of the University’s peers have long
since upgraded their systems, leaving the UW in a small minority of peers
with systems dating back 30 years. (More information about peers is
included later in the report. (See UW Peers on page 31.)
Operational Inefficiencies Are Eroding Productivity

Systems
Page 21
The inadequacy of these systems is resulting in operational inefficiencies
that impact people at every level of this institution. It is difficult for
faculty and staff to perform even the most basic functions, such as hiring,
purchasing, tracking and managing multiple budgets, and making
accurate budget projections.
The systems lack basic tools and functionality to help staff do their work,
such as controls to prevent over-spending, visibility into pending
financial transactions, or ability to do financial reporting at the unit or
department level. The systems do not collect the level and detail of data
required to meet the UW’s growing information needs.
As a result, staff must engage in “daily heroics” just to keep business
operations running and get the information they need to do their jobs.
They must go to extraordinary effort to perform basic job duties,
employing numerous manual workarounds and engaging in other
cumbersome and time-consuming processes that take away from higher-
level work.
To compensate for missing functionality, departments and units across
the University have created hundreds of shadow systems at considerable
cost and effort. These shadow systems represent a significant security
risk to the University, and maintaining them is costly and inefficient.
Staffing Challenges Increase Risk
Added to these challenges is the fact that only a handful of staff now
understands the University’s legacy systems, and this staff will retire in
the next five-to-ten years. Recruiting new staff with expertise in COBOL,
the programming language used by these systems, will be increasingly
difficult. The lack of COBOL programmers is an industry-wide problem,
and there are efforts underway to train new ones. However, even if these

Systems
Page 22
efforts are successful, the programmers are not likely to be of the same
caliber as those retiring and will not know the UW’s systems.
These problems with the legacy systems are chronic and systemic. While
the risk of sudden failure is small, the real challenge is that the systems
are becoming increasingly complex and difficult to maintain in response
to changing regulations and business requirements. This challenge will
only grow over time, making each future update more difficult, time
consuming, and costly.
A New Strategy is Needed
The UW’s strategy of continuing to maintain and enhance its current
legacy systems has worked for a number of years, enabling the UW to
focus its resources on higher priorities while making small, incremental
investments in its legacy systems.
However, efforts to enhance and extend these systems have gone as far
as they can go. These systems already do not meet the University’s
rapidly changing business and compliance needs, and that gap is
widening with each passing year as the systems grow more complex,
harder to maintain and revise, and more unwieldy and unresponsive.
Factoring in the time needed for planning, funding, and approval
processes, it is likely to take five-to-six years to replace the legacy
financial and procurement systems alone. By that time, the existing
systems will be almost 40 years old.
Given the time it will take to replace these systems, it is important that
the University begin planning in earnest now. Delay will prolong the
process and increase the risks and costs. The University needs to commit
the resources and effort required to “replace the base,” and to support its
critical business and information needs into the future.

Systems
Page 23
The Three System Replacement Projects
Replacing the University’s three legacy systems will eliminate many of the
operational inefficiencies eroding faculty and staff productivity. The new
systems will provide critical data for decision-making and collect the
level of detailed data required to meet the University’s growing
information needs. These replacement projects will include:
 Financial, Budget and Procurement Systems
This project would replace the UW’s current legacy financial, budget,
and procurement systems. The new system(s) should provide:
o A new chart of accounts and organization structure to provide
financial reports at a more detailed leveland support
interdisciplinary programs
o Capture of transactional data at a more detailed level to
provide analytical information and controls to manage
spending
o Timely unit-level financial statements to provide business unit
managers with the budget and actual financial information to
manage their business effectively
o Performance management and metrics to support the
University’s accountability objectives
o Financial reporting on a biennial, fiscal year, and life-to-date
basis to provide financial managers with information to
manage the University’s finances
o Stewardship reporting on gifts and grants to provide
stakeholders with more timely, accurate, and useful
information

Systems
Page 24
o Access to historical data for comparison and trend analysis
o The ability to track and manage multiple budgets and make
budget projections
o Real-time budget spending controls, warning messages, and
visibility into pending transactions to prevent over-spending
o The ability to track commitments against budgets
o Vendor contract management capabilities to improve controls,
compliance, and efficiency
o Improved integration with equipment management and capital
assets systems
o Electronic document management and automated workflow to
eliminate manual paper processes, improve efficiencies,
improve tracking, and provide all users with easy access to
source documents
 HR/Payroll System
An integrated solution will be selected to support the life cycle of
employment at the University, from recruitment through separation
and retirement.
The new system should provide:
o Support for the life cycle of employee activities including
recruiting, job descriptions, candidate matching, staffing and
workforce management, personnel administration,
compensation, benefits, timekeeping, background checks,
probationary hiring periods, vacation and leave tracking,
payroll, training and development, certification and license

Systems
Page 25
tracking, performance evaluations, visas and immigration
status, accidents and incidents, health and safety, temporary
employment, student employee credit hours, exit interviews,
position vacancies, compliance, employee self service,
manager self service, and position control.
o An integrated system for payroll and human resource
management for faculty and staff, retaining all information
about positions, appointments, and employees, including a full
life cycle of employee activities. This should eliminate the
proliferation of stand-alone systems and manual processes
and improve the efficiency of HR operations. In the long term,
access to this information should support the University’s
ability to recruit, retain, and develop faculty and staff.
o Faculty management capabilities including tenure dates,
interest areas, voting faculty, faculty salary comparisons, and
sabbaticals.
o Full compliance with all federal, state, and local tax and
regulatory requirements to eliminate manual calculations and
compliance reporting.
 Student Administration System
An integrated solution will be selected or developed to support
student recruitment, admissions, enrollment, course management,
graduation, alumni relationships, planning and advising, student life,
curriculum management, accreditation, and student finances
(financial aid and billing).
The new system should provide:

Systems
Page 26
o A full life cycle of information about students and their
activities to allow administrators to provide more complete
and customized advisory service
o Support for multiple campuses
o Support for students and faculty involved in interdisciplinary
programs
o Information for more complete curriculum planning and
management
o More complete information about student activities and
interests to allow customized contacts by University
Advancement staff
Sidebar: UW’s Legacy Systems: Showing Their Age:
The UW’s aging legacy systems that support its core business operations
date back to the 1970s and 1980s. As of 2008, as shown in the chart
below, these systems include:
 A student administration system implemented in 1982 -- 26 years
old
 A procurement/payables system implemented in 1982 -- 26 years
old
 A payroll system implemented in 1981 --27 years old
 A finance/budget system implemented in 1974 -- 34 years old

Systems
Page 27
REDESIGN PROCESSES
Design consistent, streamlined business
processes to leverage new technologies.
Key benefits:
 Maximize positive impact of new
systems
 Streamline work
 Manage change
The importance of redesigning business processes and managing change
to support new technologies is frequently underestimated, as are the
associated costs. Failure to rethink business processes as part of system
replacement is one of the leading reasons why organizations do not
achieve user acceptance or return on technology investments.
Organizations must structure new processes to support good controls

Systems
Page 28
and predictability and take advantage of technological improvements,
while ensuring the processes are flexible enough to respond to changing
requirements.
Under this initiative, business process redesign will go hand-in-hand
with all major system replacement projects. Changes to business
processes may be possible even before the new systems are in place. The
focus will be on designing consistent, streamlined business processes
that fully leverage new system technologies and capabilities. This
approach also will drive development of a culture of ongoing business
process improvement and collaboration to develop best practices. In
addition, business process redesign will focus on reexamining processes
to ensure that they support strategic goals efficiently and effectively. At
the UW, business processes supporting finance, procurement, and
HR/payroll functions in particular have developed over many years and
include work-arounds to compensate for the limited functionality of the
legacy systems. These processes must be redesigned in order to leverage
new technologies.
Some examples of future redesign efforts might include:
 New financial data entry processes: Currently, many departments
require administrative staff to enter summary data into the central
financial systems and then re-enter additional data into shadow
systems to accurately capture project details, accruals, and other
information to support internal reporting needs. New financial
systems will enable users to enter detailed financial data and get the
full range of financial reporting they need. Users will be able to
redesign current processes to enter data only once, which will reduce
redundant and conflicting data and ensure that one source of
information can be used for multiple levels of reporting.

Systems
Page 29
 New automated workflow processes: Contemporary systems now
support automated workflow, electronic documents, and online
approvals. These capabilities will reduce paperwork and improve
efficiency and tracking. User processes can be redesigned to take
maximum advantage of defined roles, responsibilities, escalation,
and document storage and retrievalrules in order to streamline
workflow, reduce paperwork, support full tracking of approvals, and
make source documents available to all who need them.
 Streamlined business rules: With new systems, business rules can be
captured online. These rule-based systems help ensure compliance
and remove the guesswork for new users. The current systems
significantly limit the ability to enter and edit online rules. As a
result, manual processes and controls have been developed. With the
new rules-based systems, many of the manual processes can be
eliminated or streamlined, allowing managers to focus on exception
reporting.

Systems
Page 30
ENHANCE AND RENEW SYSTEMS
Invest in ongoing enhancement,
development, and technology renewal of all
core administrative systems.
Key benefits:
 Keep up with changing business
needs
 Continue to add to research
functionality
 Upgrade alumni, development, and
facilities systems
 Make high-value interim upgrades to
legacy systems
This initiative focuses on continuing to develop and enhance the UW’s
core administrative systems supporting research administration,
alumni/development, and facilities and space.
In addition, this initiative recommends that the UW continue to invest in
high-value interim upgrades to legacy systems until those systems are
replaced. This is especially important because it is likely to take five-to-
six years to replace the legacy financial and procurement systems alone.
The interim improvements will ensure that the UW can meet its shorter-
term compliance and business requirements during the period before the
systems are replaced.
Any interim enhancements to systems slated for replacement will be
rigorously evaluated to ensure they are required for compliance or other

Systems
Page 31
reasons, will provide short-term payback, or will help with eventual
migration to a new system.
While this initiative focuses on high-value incremental enhancements to
the legacy systems slated for replacement, it is important to note that
once the new systems are in place, the UW will need to continue to invest
in enhancing and renewing the new systems to keep them current and
ensure they do not become the next generation of legacy systems.
This initiative includes enhancements to three areas: research
administration, alumni/development, and facilities and space.
Research Administration
Systems that support the mission-critical area of research administration
are incomplete and still missing important functionality. Enhancements
will focus on creating a research portal with one-stop shopping that will
guide researchers and staff through the compliance, administrative, and
reporting processes that incorporate the end-to-end research life cycle—
from grant submission through outcome reporting. Users will be able to
view all compliance activities from this portal.
Projects will focus on continuing to create streamlined, consistent, and
integrated systems and processes.
Alumni/Development
In the alumni/development area, the UW already has followed a best-of-
breed approach by migrating from the legacy systems to a commercial
product called Advance. As a result, the alumni/development system is
generally more functional, stable, and reliable than other systems.
However, it is important to continue to enhance and upgrade these
systems to meet the changing needs and expectations of donors and to

Systems
Page 32
keep up with technology changes so these systems do not become
outdated. Enhancement projects will include improving integration with
all major UW administrative systems, enhanced stewardship reporting,
constituent relationship and life cycle reporting, and technology
upgrades.
Facilities and Space
The existing systems and processes supporting facilities and space will
need to be updated over the next few years. Better information on costs
and usage of space and facilities is needed in order to optimize space
utilization, facilitate cost recovery, and improve asset controls—especially
management of hazardous materials. As with all other administrative
systems, consistent data definitions are needed in this area, as is
improved integration with other administrative systems.
PRIORITIZE AND MAKE DECISIONS
Develop a transparent decision-making
process and a mature portfolio management
framework. Enable collaborative projects
across units.
Key benefits:
 Provide strategic direction and
alignment with institutional goals
 Set priorities and maximize
investments
 Leverage expertise of departmental
resources across the University

Systems
Page 33
This initiative provides the governance framework necessary to support
the other four initiatives. It focuses on developing a transparent
governance process for information management and administrative
systems (IM/AS) that will enable a cohesive, coordinated, and
collaborative approach to prioritization and decision making aligned with
institutional priorities.
The initiative will establish a mature portfolio management process that
enables the University to align resources and projects with institutional
strategic priorities and to maximize investments. To support this effort,
the initiative recommends creating a Project Management Office to
provide project planning and oversight, portfolio analysis, and to
implement project management best practices.
The initiative calls for the development of a predictable and sustainable
funding model for IM/AS. Finally, this initiative will put in place the
support structures necessary to enable collaboration across units and
leverage the expertise of the UW’s development community.
This initiative’s projects fall under five major action areas: Prioritization
and Decision Making, Project Intake and Review Process, Staffing,
Investment, and Community and Partnership Development. What follows
is an overview of proposed projects under each action area.
Prioritization and Decision Making
 Redefine the role of the Information Management Advisory
Committee
(I-MAC) to be a strategic advisory committee for IM/AS
directions and initiatives. As part of this process, clarify
committee roles and responsibilities, clarify relationship with

Systems
Page 34
other Technology Advisory Committees, evaluate membership,
and determine the resources required to support I-MAC.
 Establish a new project review and oversight committee. To
enable I-MAC to focus on strategic issues, establish a new
committee to do the more detailed work involved with
enterprise-scale project review and oversight (i.e., the current I-
MAC proposal process). The committee should consist of key
institutional decision-makers and be supported by an effective
process that facilitates stakeholder input.
 Revise other IM/AS governance priority-setting groups. Evaluate
the current system of IM/AS oversight and priority-setting
groups and committees to create a cohesive and effective
structure that aligns with the overall IM/AS governance
structure.

Systems
Page 35
Project Intake and Review Process
 Evaluate and revise the I-MAC proposal process to make it more
streamlined and align it with the Washington State Department
of Information Services (DIS) process. This includes streamlining
and improving the intake process, reviewing the current 500-
hour threshold to evaluate whether to raise it, reviewing the
frequency of the proposal cycle and how to address emergent
needs, and developing linkages to other IM/AS governance
committees.
 Develop a proposal review and governance process for smaller
projects to include intake, review, and approvals and an
appropriate governance structure.
 Implement portfolio management to support and inform
strategic goals and the project review and governance
processes. The portfolio should include all IM/AS projects at the
UW. Establish a Project Management Office to support the
portfolio management process and implement project
management best practices.
Staffing
 Develop an IM/AS workforce management program in
partnership with UW Technology HR that includes professional
development, staff recruiting, retention and succession
planning, and HR consulting.

Systems
Page 36
 Define clear roles and responsibilities for the dual-reporting, or
“dotted line,” relationships between unit staff and the Office of
Information Management.
Investment
 The Vice Provost of Information Management/CIO should work with
the Provost, Senior Vice President, and Vice Provost for Planning &
Budgeting to devise a process for establishing a predictable and
sustainable funding model for IM/AS in conjunction with
implementing the Roadmap.
Community and Partnership Development
 Develop the services, processes, structures, administrative support,
and technical architecture necessary to enable community-based
projects and initiatives.
Roadmap Action Plan
The following section outlines an action plan for implementing the five
Roadmap initiatives, including recommended sequencing and timing.
The charts in this section show a high-level view of proposed timelines
and sequencing for each initiative and supporting projects. The timelines
suggested are aggressive and assume that funding commitments have
been secured. Additional discussion of timing is included later in this
report. (See When and How Long? on page 34.)
This proposal covers a roughly ten-year period, with replacement of all
three legacy systems completed in seven years, or by 2015. Under the

Systems
Page 37
proposal, work on Replace the Base would begin with the financial system
replacement in 2008. Participation in the Kuali Foundation’s effort to
develop a new student system would also begin in 2008, with work on
actual system implementation starting in 2011. The HR/payroll system
replacement project would begin in 2009.
The plan recommends beginning with financial system replacement
because the project will involve critical decisions relating to
organizational reporting structure and budgeting that ideally should
precede the HR/payroll system replacement.
Another important reason to proceed with the financial system
replacement first is that there is an opportunity to partner with the state
of Washington, which is also considering replacing its legacy financial
system. The state’s replacement project was a key recommendation to
come out of its recent strategic plan for finance and administration. The
UW is actively engaged in discussions about this possibility with the state,
and with Washington State University, which is looking at replacing its
legacy financial system.
In addition, the plan recommends participating in the Kuali Foundation
student system development effort concurrently with the financial system
replacement because there is a narrow window of opportunity to become
involved in the project as a founding partner and influence system
design. More information on the Kuali project is included in the section
on UW Peers. (See Kuali Foundation Student System on page 32.)
The Replace the Base initiative chart follows the Washington State project
management framework, which breaks projects into the following phases:
 Initiation
 Detailed planning

Systems
Page 38
 Execution
Each initiative includes detailed steps and phases that are not outlined in
the charts.
Where possible, projects will be designed to deliver functionality to users
incrementally, as that functionality is developed. In addition, every effort
will be made to reduce the impact of project planning and
implementation on key business partners through capacity planning to
assess the demands that will be placed on technical and business staff
and by providing backfill for those positions as necessary.
INFORMATION FOR DECISION MAKING
 Continue to develop the common data definitions, tools, and
infrastructure to enable access to accurate information for decision
making and to support all core systems and development efforts
across the UW community.

Systems
Page 39
REPLACE THE BASE
 Start the legacy system replacement projects with the financial
systems replacement, followed by the HR/payroll replacement.
 At the same time, become a partner in the Kuali student, a higher
education consortium developing a next-generation student system.
Enter the partnership in fiscal year 2008-2009 in order to gain the
benefits of early involvement in the design, requirements, and
development consortium.
 Implement all replacement system projects in multi-phase releases.

Systems
Page 40
REDESIGN PROCESSES
 Have major process redesign efforts go hand-in-hand with system
replacement projects.

Systems
Page 41
ENHANCE AND RENEW SYSTEMS
 Have enhancements to core systems supporting research
administration, facilities and space, and alumni/development occur
in parallel with legacy system replacements.
 Continue high-value interim upgrades to legacy systems to keep the
systems current and functional until they are replaced.
 Reassess and prioritize enhancement projects at least annually.

Systems
Page 42
PRIORITIZE AND MAKE DECISIONS
 Provide the governance framework necessary to support the other
four initiatives, including prioritization, decision making, resource
allocation, funding, and development of a collaborative partnership
environment.
Replace the Base Alternatives and Approaches
Implementing the Roadmap, and in particular the Replace the Base
initiative to replace the UW’s core legacy systems, will involve significant
commitment and investment. To provide some context for the difficult
decisions ahead, this section outlines the University’s possible system
replacement options and discusses which ones have been selected by
peer higher education institutions and by the state of Washington.
FOUR ALTERNATIVES
The UW has four options for replacing its core legacy systems:

Systems
Page 43
 Vendor solution. Select and acquire a commercial software package,
with or without customization. This can be licensed and maintained
in-house, or operated in a shared or hosted environment.
 Higher education consortium. Select an open source/community
source approach developed by a consortium of higher education
institutions. In most cases this will require a smaller investment up
front, but may require more internal development staff to enhance,
support, and maintain the software than would be required with a
vendor-supported system.
 Business partnership. Join a co-development effort with a for-profit
software, consulting, or integration company.
 Homegrown. Develop a custom solution either in-house or by hiring
contractors.
Recommended Approach
In keeping with the Guiding Principles established by the Information
Management Advisory Committee, the UW recognizes that a single vendor
or solution might not meet all of the needs of a complex institution. The
UW therefore will evaluate the unique needs of each major business
function and select the solution that best meets the needs of that area.
As part of the evaluation, the UW will take into consideration the effort
and complexity of integrating and supporting multiple solutions and
technologies. Assessing the ability of each system to integrate with other
systems will also be a key component in the selection process.
In addition, the UW will select the solutions that provide the best balance
of functionality, flexibility, long-term maintainability, and cost
effectiveness. The UW will acquire commercial packages where cost
effective solutions are available. The UW will seek partnerships with other

Systems
Page 44
agencies and institutions where possible, and proceed alone where its
needs are unique.
The following table shows some possible solutions for replacing each of
the legacy systems. Detailed scoping, feasibility, requirements, and
selection projects are needed to determine the UW’s actual preferred
options.
Business Area Possible Solutions
Financial, Budget, and
Procurement
• Higher education consortium: Kuali
• Vendor solution: SAP, Oracle, Banner
HR/Payroll
• Vendor solution: SAP, Oracle, Lawson,
Banner
Student Administration
• Higher education consortium: Kuali
• Vendor solution: Banner, Oracle
WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING
The following is a brief, high-level look at what system replacement
alternatives have been selected by other higher education institutions and
the state of Washington. This type of comparison can be useful in
understanding the various approaches and their relative costs. Numbers
included are only preliminary estimates from institutions’ Web sites, and
should not be viewed as complete or final. They are being provided for
context only. The charts below provide a quick overview of the systems of
other peer institutions and the state of Washington; details are given in
the sections that follow.

Systems
Page 45
Systems used by other peer institutions:
Systems used by the state of Washington:
UW Peers

Systems
Page 46
An analysis of 30 of the UW’s peer institutions1 reveals that few have
older systems than the University of Washington. In fact:
 Only one out of 30 peer institutions has an older financial system
than the UW.
 Only two peers have an older student system.
 Only four peers have an older HR/payroll system.
A majority of these institutions have replaced their legacy systems over
the past ten years with large vendor solutions, or Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) systems, especially in the financial and HR/payroll areas.
The two ERP systems selected most frequently are Oracle and Banner. Of
the few homegrown systems remaining at the UW’s peer institutions,
most were built before 1990.
The following table shows the approaches taken by the University of
Washington’s three peer comparison groups: 1) Higher Education
Coordinating Board (HECB) Peer Group; 2) Washington State Office of
Financial Management (OFM) Peer Group; and 3) Global Challenge Peer
State Institutions (state flagships with medical schools).
Administrative Systems Used by Peer Institutions
33 Universities Financial HR/Payroll Student
Homegrown
system
19%
(6)
28%
(9)
42%
(13)
Oracle ERP 44%
(14)
47%
(15)
19%
(6)
Banner ERP 28%
(9)
13%
(4)
35%
(11)
SAP ERP 3%
(1)
6%
(2)
0%
(0)
1 This source of this data is the 2007 EDUCAUSE Fact Book augmented by information
from other higher education sources. The analysis of more than 30 institutions included
24 from the Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board’s list of UW peers, 8
from the state of Washington Office of Financial Management list of UW peers, and 11
from the UW Global Challenge list of peers.

Systems
Page 47
Other vendor
system
6%
(2)
6%
(2)
3%
(1)Average year of
ERP
implementation
1998 2000 1994
Of the peer institutions that have ERPs in all three areas (finance,
HR/payroll and student), seven use the same ERP in all the areas, and
eight institutions employ a mix of ERPs. For example, the University of
Illinois system replaced all three areas with Banner. The University of
Minnesota replaced all three areas with Oracle.
Some universities that have been following a strategy similar to the UW’s
of supporting and strengthening their legacy systems now seem to be
considering ERPs. In 2006, UCLA’s strategic plan endorsed retaining and
strengthening its legacy systems, but acknowledged that it must start to
prepare for an eventual move to an ERP. The 2007-09 budget request
included $700,000 for preparation planning.
Michigan State, the only university with an older financial system than the
UW’s, authorized replacement of its legacy systems in 2006. The
University selected Kuali financials and SAP for its HR/payroll system,
according to its Web site. Target implementation date is 2009-2110.
Michigan State was also one of the five institutions with an older
HR/payroll system than the UW.
The Washington State University (WSU) strategic plan, updated February
2007, called for a review of alternatives for legacy system replacement,
and development of a replacement/upgrade plan, including a timetable
and funding strategy. WSU requested a scoping study to replace financial
and student systems, estimating the implementation cost at around $60
million.
Higher Education Consortia

Systems
Page 48
As an alternative to commercial ERPs, some universities are joining
consortia to build administrative systems that are specifically designed
for the higher education environment. The Kuali Foundation is an
example.
The Kuali Foundation is a collaborative effort between numerous
universities, including Indiana University, University of California,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Michigan State University,
which is creating a suite of open-source administrative systems to meet
the needs of Carnegie Class institutions. Currently the foundation has
four partnerships focused on developing systems in the following core
areas: financial, research administration, student, and endowment
management systems.
Kuali Foundation Student System
The Roadmap strongly recommends that the University of Washington
join the Kuali Foundation as a founding member and participate in the
development of the Kuali student system. This is a unique opportunity for
the UW to partner with other Tier 1 peer higher education institutions to
develop the next-generation student system. Current founding partners
include the University of British Columbia, University of California,
Berkeley, University of Maryland (College Park), Florida State University,
and the University of Southern California.
The UW’s current student administrative system is a 26-year-old
homegrown legacy mainframe application that is inflexible and does not
collect the information critical to effective operations and decision-
making.
A next-generation student administrative system has the potential to
substantially improve the educational quality and experience for UW
students. The new system will provide better tracking of educational

Systems
Page 49
outcomes against expected performance, which will enable the UW to
raise the bar on developing new educational programs and instruction
methods. The UW’s current system does not have those capabilities.
Joining the Kuali Foundation now will give the UW a voice in deciding
critical design issues so that the final product has a high probability of
meeting UW needs. This early involvement also will enable the UW
community to leverage the resources of partner institutions in
redesigning student administrative processes to maximize efficiencies
and flexibility.
State of Washington
The state of Washington is following the trend of replacing legacy
systems with ERP implementations. The state recently replaced its
HR/payroll system with an SAP solution at a cost of $67 million. The state
is now considering replacing its legacy financial and accounting system
and is considering SAP as a possible solution. The need to replace its
financial systems was a key recommendation of the state’s recent
strategic plan for finance and administration, the “Roadmap for
Washington State Financial and Administrative Policies, Processes and
Systems.”
As part of this effort, the Washington State Office of Financial
Management is currently engaging all state agencies, including higher
education institutions, in projects to define common data and a new chart
of accounts. The UW is participating in these activities.
In addition, the UW is actively engaged in conversations with the state
and Washington State University to understand what each is planning in
this area and to explore possible partnerships.

Systems
Page 50
Continuing this active engagement will be important to ensure that the
UW’s plans remain aligned with state efforts. Any large information
management or administrative systems project that the UW undertakes
will need to receive approval from the Washington State Department of
Information Services, and in the case of financial systems, the Washington
State Office of Financial Management.
State Resources:
Roadmap for Washington State Financial and Administrative Policies,
Processes, and System is available at:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/roadmap/default.htm
The State Strategic IT Plan is available at:
http://dis.wa.gov/news/publications/IT_Strategic_Plan_2008.pdf
WHEN AND HOW LONG?
A key question often asked is “When can the UW begin its system
replacement projects and how long will they take?” The answer depends
upon many internal and external variables, including:
 How long it will take to secure funding and approvals from the
state and others
 Time needed to explore possible partnerships
 The impact of competing priorities for funding at the UW and of
any leadership or organizational changes
 Institutional commitment and capacity
 Vendor product releases
 Length of time needed to recruit staff

Systems
Page 51
 The impact of other major non-technology projects on needed
resources
This is a major undertaking that will require years of sustained
institutional commitment to be successful.

Systems
Page 52
The timing also depends upon what approach, or combination of
approaches, the UW chooses to take. Examples of alternative approaches
are included in the following table.
Area Option 1 Option 2
Speed of
implementation
Implement more quickly:
 Implement with
minimal
customizations.
 Minimize data
conversion.
 Defer enhanced
reporting, portals,
and interfaces.
Implement more
slowly:
 Allow time for
change
management and
user training.
 Include more
user-friendly
features.
 Customize more
to meet user
needs.
Implementation
releases
The “big bang”
approach—implement for
all users, all modules.
Implement in
increments—for
example, by module
or by user group.
Timing and overlap
of projects
Overlap major business
systems projects: Work
to replace finance,
HR/payroll, student, etc.,
concurrently.
Focus on one business
area at a time.

Systems
Page 53
Area Option 1 Option 2
Project staffing Use system integration
and consulting firms to
staff the implementation
projects, training internal
staff to provide support
and maintenance.
This generally will allow
a faster implementation,
but it likely will cost
more.
Backfill internal staff
(users and technical),
train staff, and use
consultant experts
only where needed for
knowledge transfer.
This generally will
take longer, but it
likely will cost less.
Each involves balancing project scope, schedule, and resources and
evaluating the capacity of the institution to implement and manage
change. Any adjustment to one of these variables impacts the other two.

Systems
Page 54
The Reality Triangle
In general, faster implementations are more expensive, more resource
intensive, more disruptive, and involve higher risks. Slower
implementations can be less costly, allow for more customization,
training and knowledge transfer, and therefore are less disruptive and
involve less risk. However, they take longer. These tradeoffs between
scope, time, and resources are what John (Barry) Walsh of the University
of Indiana Information Systems refers to as the “reality triangle.” Any
impact in one area affects the other two.
The diagram below illustrates the idea that the three areas are
interdependent.
Conclusion
NEXT STEPS
The following next steps for implementing the Roadmap have been
identified through discussions with the Information Management
Advisory Committee, University Technology Advisory Committee, Board
of Deans and Chancellors, and other key stakeholders:

Systems
Page 55
 Move forward with the financial system replacement. Begin work on a
needs assessment and explore possible partnerships, including with
the state, as well as other options.
 Join the Kuali student partnership. Become a founding member of
the Kuali Foundation student system development effort.
 Invest in high-value system enhancements as funding allows.
 Identify a long-term funding strategy to implement the Roadmap
initiatives. This includes identifying an annual operating and capital
investment plan for information management and administrative
systems.
WORKFORCE PLANNING
As the University moves forward with system replacement, it also will
need to engage in thoughtful, long-term workforce planning for its
technology staff. As new technologies are introduced and old ones
decommissioned it will be critical to retain, reward, and retrain valued
staff members and engage in succession planning to prepare for the
upcoming wave of retirements.
In addition, it will be important to continue to focus on building an
environment that encourages and rewards sharing, collaboration, and
partnership within the UW and with external groups such as higher
education consortia, state agencies, and business partners. New
technologies will provide great opportunities for those who thrive in a
community environment.

Systems
Page 56
UPDATES TO THE ROADMAP
The Roadmap will be updated annually prior to the budgeting process.
Projects and initiatives will be reassessed and prioritized in conjunction
with the governance framework and the portfolio management process.
INVEST IN THE FUTURE
For the past two decades the University has made a strategic decision to
invest its limited technology resources in research and other computing
priorities. This approach has enabled the UW to build a technology
infrastructure that has made this institution a global leader in technology
and given it a competitive edge.
This strategy, however, has resulted in decades of underinvestment in
information management and administrative systems. The UW’s aging
and functionally inadequate systems are now resulting in inefficiencies
that are eroding the productivity of faculty, staff, and researchers at every
level of the institution.
Up to this point, the UW has been able to maintain its core systems on a
small and unpredictable budget. However, this funding model will not
support the capital investments needed to move to a new generation of
systems. A new funding model is needed to support baseline operations
and maintenance, ongoing technology renewal, and major projects. A
sustainable and predictable life cycle funding plan is needed to optimize
decision making and ensure that investments in new systems are
leveraged through the ongoing maintenance and technology renewal
required to keep those systems current.
The University of Washington is a premier higher education institution
that repeatedly is recognized as one of the best in the world. Yet its

Systems
Page 57
administrative systems are among the oldest and most archaic of its
peers. These systems do not meet the University’s current business
needs, and they cannot support its future aspirations.
The University does not need the world’s best payroll or accounts payable
system. But it does need modern, flexible systems and accurate, timely
information to support a complex, global enterprise. It is time for this
institution to move from discussion to action—and makes the
investments necessary to position the University of Washington for the
future.

Systems
Page 58
APPENDICES
The report’s four appendices cover current staffing allocations for IM/AS,
the history and context of UW IM/AS, a detailed discussion of the
strategic roadmap project and report development, and a full list of
contributors.
I. Current Staffing Allocations for
Information Management and
Administrative Systems
INTRODUCTION
This appendix shows current staffing levels for the development,
maintenance, and support of UW information management and
administrative systems and services managed by the Office of
Information Management (OIM) and the supporting technical
infrastructure managed by UW Technology.
OIM directs information management and administrative systems
throughout the UW and is responsible for the development, maintenance,
and support of central administrative applications and information
management services. For more information about OIM see:
http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/
UW Technology provides information technology, networking, and
services to the UW community. UW Technology is responsible for the
infrastructure that supports the UW’s central administrative applications.

Systems
Page 59
For more information about UW Technology see:
http://www.washington.edu/uwtech/
STAFFING SUPPORT FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS
Staff Allocation by Activity Type
OIM staff support for information management and administrative
systems (IM/AS) is allocated among the following three activities:
 Production Support refers to work that keeps the systems running
on a daily basis, including response to time-critical issues such as
program logic errors and data exceptions. Production support staff
deals with issues as they arise to keep the systems running
correctly.
 Maintenance includes projects that adapt the system to changes in
business rules and to new externally or internally mandated
requirements. It also includes projects that implement process
improvements, keep the systems technically current, and fix non-
critical bugs.
 Development includes activities that extend existing processes, add
new functionality, or convert existing processes to new technology.
The following chart shows how staff time is allocated between production
support, maintenance, and development activities.

Systems
Page 60
Overview of Functional Areas
As of September 2008, the Office of Information Management employs
94.5 staff in direct support of UW information management and
administrative systems in the following functional areas:
 InformationManagement
o ApplicationIntegrationServices
o DecisionSupportServices
 Administrative Systems
o Finance
o Student
o Human Resources/Payroll
o Alumni/Development
o UniversityServices
o ApplicationProcessingandCoordination
 Project Support
o ProjectServices
o Portfolio Management
The following chart shows how staffing resources are allocated among
the functional areas. The Administrative Systems area includes strategic
projects such as the Financial Desktop Initiative (FDI) and Electronic
Faculty Effort and Cost Sharing (eFECS). The Project Support area is
comprised of project services staff, including those that provide portfolio
Staff Allocation byActivityType
(94.5 FTE)
ProdSupport45.6 FTE
Maintenance 20.7 FTE
Development28.2FTE

Systems
Page 61
management support and services such as usability, technical
documentation, and project support.
Staff Allocation by Functional Area
The following section provides more detail on OIM staffing allocations for
each functional area.
Application
Integration Services
Decision Support
Services
Finance
Student
HR/Payroll
University
Services
App Processing
and Coord
Alumni/
Development
Project Services
Portfolio
Management
Information Management:
Application Integration Services 7 FTE
Decision Support Services 7 FTE
Administrative Systems:
Finance 27 FTE
Student 14.8 FTE
HR/Payroll 13.4 FTE
University Services 7.5 FTE
App Processing and Coord 5 FTE
Alumni/Development 4 FTE
Project Support:
Project Services 7 FTE
Portfolio Management 1.8 FTE
Total
InformationManagement:
Project Support:
Administrative Systems:
(Includes Strategic Projects):
Staff Allocation by Functional Area
(94.5 FTE)

Systems
Page 62
Information Management Functional Areas
ApplicationIntegrationServices
Application Integration Services provides consistent and integrated data
across subject areas and spanning the life cycle of activities. It also
provides support for distributed application development using service
oriented techniques.
DecisionSupportServices
Decision Support Services provides development and support for the
Enterprise Data Warehouse and business intelligence and analytical tools
for timely access to data for decision making.
Application Integration Services Staffing
(7 FTE)
Prod Support 0.7 FTE
Maintenance 0.8 FTE
Development 5.5 FTE
Decision Support Services Staffing
(7 FTE)
Maintenance 1.0 FTE
Development 4.8 FTE

Systems
Page 63

Systems
Page 64
Administrative Systems Functional Areas
FinanceSystems
The finance systems include central financial accounting, budgeting,
procurement, and payables. These systems are driven by transaction
input from business users across the University. On average, 200,000
transactions are accepted each month from business users. An additional
300,000 are accepted from central office staff and other interfacing
systems. This base of 500,000 transactions is “exploded” into an average
of 2.2 million records each month (i.e., for each single-entry transaction,
the system might generate numerous “back-side” transactions). In
addition, transaction numbers climb even higher during peaks in
processing that occur during fiscal closing, salary revisions, and other
high-demand periods. The procurement systems support requisitions
and payment for goods and services totaling over $1.1 billion per year.
The JDE Grants Receivables system takes in $1.1 billion per year from
grant sponsors.
UW users access financial transaction data and reports through the Web-
based My Financial Desktop application.
Finance Systems Staffing
( 27 FTE)
Maintenance 5.1 FTE
Development 8.3 FTE
(Includes FDI and eFECS)

Systems
Page 65
StudentSystems
The student systems support core student administrative functions such
as admissions, registration, permanent records, financial aid, and tuition
collection, as well as many ancillary functions. The student systems retain
the official academic records for 761,000 UW students—every student
who has attended the UW since 1981. The Web-based student
registration system handles over 500 transactions each minute during
peak registration periods. The student systems generally account for 60
to 75 percent of the total daily load of 200,000 to 900,000 transactions
on the administrative mainframe.
HR/PayrollSystems
In a typical two-week payroll cycle, The HR/payroll systems distribute
$60 million in pay to the University’s 35,000 employees. The HR/payroll
systems pay out $1.6 billion annually, 85 percent to direct deposit, and
distribute 50,000 W-2's each year.
Student Systems Staffing
(14.8 FTE)
Maintenance 5.2 FTE
Development 1.3 FTE

Systems
Page 66
HR/Payroll Systems Staffing
(13.4 FTE)
Maintenance 3.8 FTE
Development 0.6 FTE

Systems
Page 67
University Services
The University Services functional area includes the administrative
systems used by Facilities Services, Transportation, Environmental Health
and Safety, UW Technology, and other units.
ApplicationsProcessingand Coordination
The Applications Processing and Coordination functional area supports
batch processing and report production for all of the administrative
systems supported.
University Services Staffing
(7.5 FTE)
Maintenance 3.3 FTE
Development 1.2 FTE

Systems
Page 68
Alumni/DevelopmentSystem
The alumni/development system supports the computing needs of
University Advancement through the SunGard BSR Advance system. It also
supports a locally-developed reporting application and customized
interfaces to other UW administrative systems. The alumni/development
system processed 110,000 gifts in the last two weeks of “Campaign UW:
Creating Futures” and recorded a total of $2.68 billion in donations
during the eight-year campaign.
Project Services Functional Areas
Application Processing andCoordination
(5 FTE)
Prod Support 5 FTE
Maintenance 0 FTE
Development 0 FTE
Alumni/Development System Staffing
(4 FTE)
Prod Support 3 FTE
Maintenance 1 FTE
Development 0 FTE

Systems
Page 69
Project Services
Project Services provides project management, quality assurance,
technical writing, and usability services for enterprise-wide projects.
Staffing for the strategic projects such as FDI and eFECS are accounted
for in the Administrative Systems Functional Area.
PortfolioManagement
Portfolio Management includes support for project intake, oversight, and
prioritization that achieves the right mix of tactical and strategic projects
for the UW.
Project Services Staffing
(7 FTE)
Maintenance 0.5 FTE
Development 5.5 FTE
Portfolio Management Staffing
(1.8 FTE)
Prod Support .8 FTE
Maintenance 0 FTE
Development 1 FTE

Systems
Page 70
STAFFING SUPPORT FOR TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
UW Technology employs 23.8 staff members to support the technical
infrastructure for the University’s administrative systems and information
management services. This infrastructure includes:
 Servers, storage, and other hardware
 Operating systems including Microsoft Windows, Server, UNIX, and
Unisys Clearpath MCP
 Database management systems including Microsoft SQL Server,
Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and Unisys DMSII
 Application, management, and monitoring tools
The infrastructure staff provides the following support:
 Application support and engineering—focusing primarily on the
Windows environment, providing in-depth consulting expertise in
new and emerging aspects of this environment, as well as support
for integrating best-of-breed packages such as Ariba and JD
Edwards.
 Database administration—supporting the design, implementation,
and operation of database environments across multiple server
platforms.
 Windows/UNIX infrastructure—involving the specification,
installation, and configuration of 100 Windows and 30 IBM AIX
servers, as well as monitoring and ongoing support. This area also
supports the enterprise backup software used for the Windows and
UNIX servers and manages disk storage.
 MCP infrastructure—involving the configuration, monitoring, and
ongoing support of the mainframe systems that service numerous
core administrative applications. This area also serves as a

Systems
Page 71
technical consulting resource for the mainframe environment and
supports environmentaland operational software such as job
scheduling and tape management.
 Identity and Access Management—criticalto ensuring easy and
convenient access to Web-based resources and services and a
consistent user experience. It provides the infrastructure necessary
to enable use of a single user identification and password to log on
to most systems, access to appropriate resources, and support for
portal services that tailor content to each individual user.
 Outreach—ensures that UW Technology engineering services and
expertise are successfully applied in support of the University of
Washington's mission. Helps to establish and build collaborative
relationships with customers, vendors, administrators, and other
technical units.
 MyUW Portal—a portal for accessing a wide variety of UW
information and services, including student and employee personal
information. MyUW provides access to specially tailored Web
resources based on roles at the University and personal
preferences.
The following chart shows how the infrastructure support staff currently
is allocated.

Systems
Page 72
Window s/Unix
MCP Eng (mainframe)
Database Services
Identity/Access Mgmt
Storage Services
MyUW Portal Outreach Application
Engineering
Technical Infrastructure
Support Staffing (UW Technology)
(23.8 FTE)
Windows/Unix 7.0 FTE
MCP Eng (mainframe) 4.5 FTE
Database Services 4.25 FTE
Identity/Access Mgmt 4 FTE
Storage Services 1.75 FTE
MyUW Portal 1.2 FTE
Outreach 1.0 FTE
Application Engineering 0.1
FTE

Systems
Page 73
II. History and Context of UW Information
Management and Administrative Systems
PRIOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SYSTEMS STRATEGY
The University of Washington’s previous strategy for administrative
systems and information management evolved through a series of
institutional decisions made over the past 30 years.
A key decision was to channel limited resources towards technology that
supports research and other computing priorities. This strategy enabled
the UW to become a recognized technology leader and gave it a
competitive edge in discovery and learning.
However, the strategy has resulted in decades of underinvestment in
administrative systems and information management. In order to
maximize the limited funding available, the University’s strategy for its
administrative systems was to incrementally renew and extend its
existing systems.
While the University has been able to sustain its systems with minimal
investment for many years, the core systems are now decades old and no
longer support its current business needs. Efforts to enhance and extend
these systems have gone as far as they can go.
The University’s previous strategy is outlined in the “Strategic Choices for
Administrative Computing” document, dated April 2003. See:
http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/choices/
The strategy called for:

Systems
Page 74
 Modernizing and extending core legacy systems (HR/payroll,
finance, student)
 Transforming business practices to improve how people do their
work
 Investing in best of breed systems for specific functional areas
(build or buy)
 Providing access to information using data warehouse
approaches
 Developing and integrating middleware that is critical to
creating a user-friendly, Web-based experience, including
personalization (MyUW), authentication (UW NetID), and
authorization (ASTRA)
The strategy also entailed incrementally implementing the vision outlined
in the “UW Information Services Strategy.” See:
http://www.washington.edu/computing/directions/iss.html
The vision was to deliver a rich array of resources to the University
community anytime and anywhere via a Web portal that provided a
customized view for each individual, based on that person’s roles and
responsibilities.
More history of administrative computing is included in the Strategic
Choices document Appendix IV: History and Context of Administrative
Computing at the University of Washington. See:
http://www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/choices/AppendixIV.hi
story.4.29.pdf

Systems
Page 75
IS FUTURES TASK FORCE
In March 2006, Provost Phyllis Wise created the Future of Information
Systems (IS Futures) Task Force to take a comprehensive, five-to-10-year
view of information technology needs and strategies for addressing them.
The committee gathered data from faculty, staff, and students;
interviewed stakeholders on institutional trends and future IT needs;
convened panels of business leaders and IT specialists from other
universities; surveyed other universities on best practices; and did other
research.
The task force’s January 19, 2007 Future of Information Systems Task
Force Final Report identified the following key challenges:
 The UW’s current information technology (IT) structure is
fragmented, with responsibilities, decision making, and
accountability spread across many different units.
 The UW currently lacks a clear vision or institutional strategy for
information technology. There is no institutional context for
prioritizing projects or allocating resources and no framework for
understanding how individual projects fit into a long-term strategy.
 IT funding is inconsistent, allocated in a piecemealfashion, and
inequitable.
 Analytic data is lacking or difficult to acquire. Data storage and
management is not unified or coordinated.
 To compensate for missing functionality in core administrative
systems, UW staff are engaged in daily heroics, cobbling together
time-consuming workarounds.
To address these challenges, the report recommended that the UW
consider creating an Office of Information Management to be responsible

Systems
Page 76
for information management and administrative systems and coordinate
the integration of information systems and services throughout the UW.
Other key recommendations included:
 Be proactive in creating and maintaining information and
technology systems that support goals and core functions.
 Allocate baseline biennial funding for technology in all of the core
areas: Academics, research, administration, and medicine.
 Allocate consistent funding to maintain and support a baseline and
ensure a competitive advantage through information systems in
designated priority areas.
For more information about the IS Futures Task Force findings and
recommendations, and to read the final task force report, see the task
force Web site. See:
http://depts.washington.edu/isfuture/index.shtml
OFFICE OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
In response to the IS Futures Task Force recommendations and input
from deans and other key stakeholders, the Provost and the Vice
President for UW Technology created a new Office of Information
Management (OIM) in November 2006.
The office was created to achieve:
 Direct alignment of authority over functional organization business
practices, policy, resources, and priorities with the UW’s core
information management and information systems resources and
capabilities
 The powerful alignment of information systems and information
management staff and services across the University

UW Strategic Roadmap for Administrative Systems

UW Strategic Roadmap for Administrative Systems

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to UW Strategic Roadmap for Administrative Systems

Similar to UW Strategic Roadmap for Administrative Systems (20)

UW Strategic Roadmap for Administrative Systems