Committee on IT Infrastructure (CITI) Meeting
January 9, 2007
Meeting Summary

CITI Attendees:  Sue Abeles, Neal Axelrod, Mitch Creem, Glyn Davies, James Davis, Vijay Dhir, Rick Greenwood, Nick Hernandez, Tom Lifka, Janina Montero, Sam Morabito,  Patricia O’Brien, Steve Olsen, Roberto Peccei, Terry Ryan, Albert Setton, Gary Strong

Guests: Nick Reddingius (OIT), Michael Schilling (CTS), Marsha Smith (OIT), Greg Spotts (OIT), Don Worth (AIS)

Agenda Item 1: James Davis and Steve Olsen presented an overview (of CITI planning objectives and progress for FY 2006-2007. 

The planning process and scope of CITI engagement in terms of endorsement and commitment or review across a number of projects was discussed. CITI endorsement and commitment are sought for Institutional Services, Applications and Platforms. These are projects that have no single unit ownership and accountability: These include:

• Disaster Recovery
• Integrated Student Web Experience/Student Portal
• Common Collaboration and Learning Environment (CCLE)
• Campus Security
• Identity Management

CITI review on project scope, process and campus impact includes:

• Institutional data management
• Enterprise resource planning (ERP) versus Legacy systems

CITI review and input with emphases on impact on institutional systems include:

• Dossier Action Tracking (DAT II) phase II
• Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS)
• Student Records 2 (SR2)  - which has been funded
• Financial System Upgrades
• Bruin Card

Two planning projects are poised to begin: the Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Planning, ($485,000) and the Integrated Student/Parent Web Experience, ($250,000).  The Common Collaboration and Learning Environment planning project is likely to be discussed in depth at the February 2007 CITI meeting.  Campus security review plans are taking place across the campus in various units, and the Identity Management project is under review.  The ERP vs. Legacy project, because of the significant impact on business process, is under further discussion for the possible replacement of legacy systems with a next generation shared services system.

Discussion Points:

• The origin and purpose of the TIF Repositioning Fund was reviewed, providing information on current uses and the criteria for future uses.  Other funding sources were reviewed.  CITI’s role can extend beyond approving projects within CITI’s budget purview. There may be a further codification of funding criteria in the future, possibly with a scoring system that includes financial and strategic metrics.  Enterprise-level and shared services projects can and should be reviewed/endorsed by CITI regardless of funding source.
• Consultant reports that legacy systems are in their final cycle before replacement. CITI will need to determine whether this assessment is accurate.  Over time, CITI will need to consider the replacement of legacy systems with a next generation shared-services system.  Functionality of each item would still belong to the individual unit, but could be powered by a campus-wide set of resources.
• VOIP technology will, over time, drive further convergence between telephony and IT resources.  At present, budgets for telephony and IT are separated, even though wiring infrastructure for telephony and network is often shared.  CITI wishes to stay informed of convergence opportunities and manage the transition strategically.
• The timetable for approving projects faces a trade-off between generating timely approvals and benefiting from a strategic benefit review of related/competing projects.  Although strategic, multi-project review is an important management tool, certain projects require expedited processing through the IT governance system.

Action: None requested, none taken.

Agenda Item 2: Student/Parent Integrated Web Experience

James Davis summarized the status of this project, which was first brought to CITI at the November 2006 meeting.  Executive Sponsors of the project explained the need for “one-stop shopping” for students and parents transacting business with the university, rather than the current approach that requires students to visit individual websites and make separate payments for registration, housing, parking etc.  Certain other universities such as University of Michigan and UCSD have already embraced this kind of integrated approach, and today’s incoming undergraduates expect this kind of high-quality web experience.

Discussion Points:

• Ideal goal for the project is to provide a single point of service and enhanced functionality.  Such enhancements should streamline cross-unit business processes that currently require students to submit similar information on multiple forms to multiple offices/units.
• Certain systems that power student transactions are already near the end of their life cycle, and replacing them on a unit basis no longer makes financial sense.
• Enthusiasm among Executive Sponsors is high, signaling a window of opportunity to embrace the shared-services approach.  CITI and Chancellor can help move the process forward by favoring shared-services projects over large-scale individual unit projects.
• External Affairs benefits from all upgrades to the student experience, and the web interface is a substantial upgrade that would increase students’ overall regard for the University.
• Planning project document should be amended to remove sentence limiting planning scope to URSA and My.UCLA, so that initial scope is as broad as possible.

Action: CITI endorsed the $250,000 planning project by consensus.

Agenda Item 3: UCOP and UCLA Planning for Human Resource Information System

Sue Abeles and Don Worth provided an update on possible routes towards an Human Resource Information System (HRIS) that can rapidly provide detailed data and reports to both UCLA and UCOP.  Currently, all campuses run a a common payroll system (or it is run from them by UCOP or UCLA) but for HRIS, some have purchased a PeopleSoft product and others use a collection of HR applications.  UCLA’s longstanding payroll system functions well but we see some deficiencies in HR functionality.  Those campuses that have implemented large, ERP HRIS systems (like Peoplesoft) have found it difficult, expensive, and, in most cases, lacking in complete functionality.  UCLA hopes to engage the UCOP planning process to generate the best possible solution – a hybrid that would integrate ERPs at some campuses with enhanced Payroll systems and data warehouses at others to roll data up to UCOP.  The project appears to be on an expedited basis at the UCOP level, although a variety of solutions are still being considered.

Further information is available in two documents, the UCOP Planning Document and UCLA HRIS White Paper.

Action: None requested, none taken.