CBT Updated Roadmap

1. CBT Updated Roadmap December 13, 2013

2. Topics • Roadmap discussion • Discussion items • Revised timeline • Budget • Appendix 1 – excerpt of priority projects • Appendix 2 – original timeline

3. Roadmap Discussion • ITG Funding flow changes: • On-Line Reconciliation Tool and Improved Invoicing Sponsored Projects moved to begin July 1, 2015 • Database to enable self funded equipment maintenance moved to begin July 1, 2015; however will have a separate funding stream from ITG CFP • Faculty Portfolio funded for July 1, 2014 however post go live stabilization will still in progress given new March F3 go live. • ITG Guidelines reminder: ITG CFP funded priority projects may be switched around but must remain within the constraints of total ITG CFP funding authorized in a given fiscal year • Discussion item: prioritize and select the next project(s). See excerpts from original description (Appendix 1)

4. Other Roadmap Changes • Space Systems start up moved back 6 months per capacity discussions; timing to be refined at January CBT meeting with Functional Owner • MPM rebuild on behalf of UC System added (project currently under discussion as part of UC Path) • Capital Projects System added per last CBT meeting (timing to be finalized) • Docusign (Paperless Digital Signatures) added–Infrastructure committee initiative, funded by ITS, but impacts department business processes/resources; (timing to be finalized) • Data Warehouseand Reporting (Business portion) timing and roll-out strategy remains TBD pending campus-wide DW initiative plan

5. CBT Updated Timeline Dec 2013

6. CBT allocation from final approved ITG Comprehensive Plan (10/15) Five Priority (High) Projects CFP FAS CFP TBD; also need initial reserve CFP Red is funding source. UDAR and UC Path are separate allocations and not through the ITG CFP total approved plan. DW is now incorporated into a campus-wide budget.

7. Appendix 1Excerpt of Priority Projects from CBT original materials Fall 2012 • Rebuild Faculty Portfolio in HPP • On-line Reconciliation Tool • Improved Invoicing for Fixed Price Sponsored Projects • Database to enable self-funded equipment maintenance

8. Rebuild contract & grant reporting & forecasting (Faculty Portfolio) • Description • Integrate and replace the functionality of the TM1-based PI Portfolio using the Hyperion Planning tool. The PI Portfolio provides PIs and Research Analysts with both a forecast tool and a set of reports to manage their portfolio of funds. • Benefits and Impact • PI portfolio management provides the tools and data to allow comprehensive planning, forecasting and strategic decision-making. Improvements in this system has high impact given the campus manages over $1billion of research funds annually. • Contract and grant activity provides over 50% of the campuses revenue. PI’s and their financial support staff will benefit most. • Integrating functions into one system improves data integration and better enables utilization of contract and grant data as a part of the overall campus planning and reporting efforts. • Alternative PI Portfolio management improves efficiency by simplifying data entry, reduces number of systems to be learned & maintained and reduces overall system costs. • Key process, people or organization changes • Although both faculty and research administration support staff will be involved, change management may be lessened due to process improvement and system implementation groundwork initiated in 2012 . • Timeline and Budget: 11 months; $430,000 one time costs. Ongoing costs: zero since absorbed by existing HPP team that will need to be funded. Project Impact Statement By converting the TM1 system into the Hyperion Planning tool, campus users have one coordinated system for all budgeting and planning needs. Reduces technical cost (hardware, labor) of maintaining two different systems for similar functions, including license fees (about $37k saved annually of every 200 users). 8

9. On-line reconciliation tool • Description • This system will provide the campus with an effective & efficient process and set of tools to facilitate the G/L reconciliation process. The tool will allow users to create reports that pull or filter data in critical areas. Exception reports will be created based on a number of high-risk criteria and the tool will provide drill down features for detailed analysis. Some local systems exist, but they will disabled after new COA is implemented. • Similar systems have been implemented and are available from UCD, UCI. • Benefits and Impact • System will provide the campus with a set of tools to improve its financial compliance capabilities and reduce risks of error/defalcation. The tool will allow the campus to meet its SAS115 requirement. • Financial departmental managers and staff will be impacted the most. Analysis has identified reconciliation as one of the most time-consuming activities for finance staff. • Reconciliation process will identify problem areas to ensure that financial data is accurate and helps assess source of data inaccuracy. • Reduces cost of staff performing manual reconciliation process across the institution. A system will maximize staff resources by focusing their time on problematic areas. • Key process, people or organization changes • Redefining the business process for G/L reconciliation and determining the roles and responsibilities for doing this. • Timeline and Budget: 18 months; $860,000 one time costs, plus 155k support per year Project Impact Statement Today, 10% of Finance effort across all people who touch Finance is in reconciliation activity (extrapolated from Feb 2011 survey of 9 departments on sponsored projects finance efforts). The Online Reconciliation Tool saves 60% of reconciliation efforts as reported by users of a comparable model at UC Davis. Hypothetically, an Online Reconciliation Tool at UCSF will save about 24,000 hours per year for every 200 people engaged in full-time Finance work.

10. Improved Invoicing Process to bill sponsors* • Overview • Today fixed price contracts are not billed on a timely basis. Because fixed price contracts require completion of a task or scope of work to get paid, departments have to provide the billing information and supporting documents to EMF to generate an invoice in RAS. • While fixed price contracts only represented 7% of the invoices in FY12, they accounted for approximately 22% of the sponsored projects revenue, $205 million. • This project would be an enhancement/modification to RAS to allow departments to submit billing along with supporting documents directly which would lead to more timely invoicing on fixed price contracts. . • Benefits and Impact • Reduce negative STIP through timely invoices and collection of money. • Improved cash flow • Reduced manual effort to create invoices • Benefits EMF, post award analysts and PIs who have to absorb cost of negative STIP • Key Process, People or Organizational Changes • Redefining the business process for entering invoices in RAS and determining the roles and responsibilities for doing this. • Timeline and Budget: 6-9 months; $420,000one time; no ongoing since covered by current Psoft team Project Impact Statement For every 5% of fixed price contract annual revenue ($10M) that is billed and collected earlier, estimate could reduce negative STIP by $200,000. * A critical area identified by Finance Subgroup as well ** Does not include hardware or software costs

11. Database to enable Self Funded Equipment Maintenance • Overview • To enable a self funded equipment maintenance program, UCSF needs a database to track all equipment data, service history and warranty information. This would help assess the risk and provide information on when equipment needs to be replaced. Either Service Now Asset Management or PeopleSoft Asset Management module may be a possible solution. • Today UCSF spends $150-200M on equipment; service contracts are 10% of the total cost. • Benefits and Impact • Improved data quality about equipment maintenance and status • Significantly reduce costs – estimate could save $6M annually* on service contract costs. • Could potentially lower recharge rate, which would help PIs since approximately 60% of money today comes from research contracts/grants. • Would benefit all departments and schools with core facilities • Key Process, People or Organizational Changes • This will require the engagement of all cores, including gathering of current information to put into database, regular input of service calls and would engage our capital asset management team. • Would require a process change to include annual instrument risk assessment. • Timeline and Budget: 12 months, $630,000 on time costs, plus 30k/year ongoing Project Impact Statement: Estimate could save $6M annually** on service contract costs by having a self funded equipment maintenance program 11 *Does not include hardware and software costs; assumes leveraging PeopleSoft Asset module **Conservatively estimate UCSF could reduce service contract costs by 40%.

12. Appendix 2 • Original timeline

13. Revised CBT Roadmap of High Priority Projects Updated Post ITG Fall 2013 F3 go live Moved for cash flow smoothing