SAP is collaborating with UK in this endeavor to measure the value of the implementation over time. The study will not constitute a cost to the project.

Additionally, Shyam suggested that go-live for MM (inventory component) take place December 2005. He noted that replacement of the hospital’s ESI system was a high risk matter, given the bar coding and EDI interfaces and the amount of testing required. Shyam also stressed that MM would present a significant process change on the hospital side where recording of consumption must be strengthened.

In the interim (July-December) UK would need to interface with FI. The rationale for the staged FI and MM implementation is built on the need to get basic functionality in FI done first. By July 2005 campus purchasing would be in place and the hospital’s MM system could then be implemented six months later.

Shyam compared his proposed schedule with past experiences at Duke University (same strategy, 18 months) and University of Tennessee (14 months). When questioned about less time here, he explained that the product was better, the consultants were more experienced, and thus faster delivery could occur.

Shyam’s proposed timeline stimulated lots of discussion. Committee members posed questions and raised concerns about possible missed deadlines and the management of expectations. Critical to this schedule is the commitment of adequate resources during the Realization Phase of implementation.

The faculty effort system solution adds to the uncertainties and will require additional resources. As noted by Murray Clark, the institution must get a faculty reporting system that is both usable and useful.

The FES Committee is finalizing its recommendations and a draft report will be shared with the Coordinating Committee. The final document should be available by the end of the month.

The timeline decision is an important one to be made and reported to the Board of Trustees at the end of the year.

The question becomes, “Why turn on concurrent pay in SAP?” Without this functionality, the University would be dealing with one personnel number for each employee. Concurrent pay adds another layer of personnel numbers. Michelle posed the question of whether the institution might change payroll policy and practice to in fact pay these employees in a different manner and avoid concurrent pay altogether. Both Phyllis and she wanted the committee to be fully aware of this complication, should a change in policy be needed.

In other HR and payroll matters, the Coordinating Committee learned that the Payroll Review Group has now recommended that the total university move to the hospital cycle (Saturday – Friday) for bi-weekly payroll.