HEUG 2002 LAS VEGAS March 4 7 2002

  • Slides: 36
Download presentation
HEUG 2002 LAS VEGAS March 4 -7, 2002

HEUG 2002 LAS VEGAS March 4 -7, 2002

Who did I meet? • Other schools to keep in touch with: – Ohio

Who did I meet? • Other schools to keep in touch with: – Ohio State University Research Foundation – much larger than UD – but bringing up Grants in July 2003 – University of South Florida – about the same size – going live July 2003 – University of Maryland – Baltimore – we’re practically neighbors – might be good to keep in touch – they have not committed to implementing grants – University of Missouri – Columbia – Deborah Caselman was in agreement with Ben Martin that processing F&A through Grants was the way to go

Who else? • Andersen consulting has worked with several of the schools • Deloitte

Who else? • Andersen consulting has worked with several of the schools • Deloitte Consulting – Frank Mollo – he’s located in New Jersey. He helped Western Michigan implement. Nice guy – was willing to answer questions

The Good News First • The Grants sessions were heavily attended – a lot

The Good News First • The Grants sessions were heavily attended – a lot of interest in the product • The Grants 8. 4 presentation was good – navigation much easier • There are plenty of consultants willing to help (Andersen, Allied and Deloitte seem to have the most experience) • Waiting to receive a copy of the PS Power. Point presentation – will pass on when I have it

More Good News • PS 8. 4 is committed to supporting “best practices” as

More Good News • PS 8. 4 is committed to supporting “best practices” as outlined by the Hackett Group – Best Practice = Efficiency+Effectiveness = World Class Performance

The Bad News…. • The rounding issue still not resolved • Billing appears to

The Bad News…. • The rounding issue still not resolved • Billing appears to be on an accrual basis – not sure about this yet • Although heavily attended – there aren’t too many schools live on Grants. Most that I talked to are planning 8. 4 in July 2003

PS Grants 8. 4 • Presented by Barry Hickson – Barry. Hickson@People. Soft. com

PS Grants 8. 4 • Presented by Barry Hickson – Barry. Hickson@People. Soft. com • Will support latest PHS 398 and PHS 2590 • Supports specific securities: – Operator ID – Dept ID tree • Commitment control (replaces budget checking) allows for more flexibility

PS Grants 8. 4 • Forms: – PHS 298 – PHS 2590 – SF

PS Grants 8. 4 • Forms: – PHS 298 – PHS 2590 – SF 272 – SF 269 – SF 270 – SF 1034/1035 – Generic Invoice

PS Grants 8. 4 • F&A, IDC, Overhead (pick a name): – Multiple offsets

PS Grants 8. 4 • F&A, IDC, Overhead (pick a name): – Multiple offsets – Three Computations: • SFA • WFA (waived F&A) • CFA (cost share F&A) – Store by: • Institution (e. g. UD = 51%, 26%, etc) • Sponsor (e. g. AHA will only pay 8%) • Funded (the specified award will only pay 5%)

PS Grants 8. 4 • F&A (continued) • Can be calculated through Grants Module

PS Grants 8. 4 • F&A (continued) • Can be calculated through Grants Module or through G/L Allocations – U Wisconsin Milwaukee is using G/L • Seemed complicated – De. Paul, KU and U Texas are using Grants • They all said this method was easier than G/L

PS Grants 8. 4 • Contracts Module now required to run Grants Module –

PS Grants 8. 4 • Contracts Module now required to run Grants Module – Executive Team will investigate – Comes to E&G due to Commercial/E&G merge – Good news: Don’t know. We haven’t seen module to know what it does – Bad news: We have to learn and set-up another module

PS Grants 8. 4 • Creating a proposal will bring in certifications from the

PS Grants 8. 4 • Creating a proposal will bring in certifications from the institution level – there’s no need to enter all of the certifications on all proposals as long as they are in institution profile – at the proposal level you add proposal specific certs • Rounding Issue on Proposal not fixed in 8. 4 – I raised the question and Barry said it was something they need to look at – De. Paul merely ignores the warnings

PS Grants 8. 4 • Professional Data: – When you hit the “load” button

PS Grants 8. 4 • Professional Data: – When you hit the “load” button on publications, current funding, etc. it pulls from “Maintain Professionals” which gets its data from HR • Sponsors: – Define a finite number of budget categories needed for a sponsor and those will be the only ones available when preparing the budget

PS Grants 8. 4 • Versions allow history of how proposal evolved • Institution-Funded

PS Grants 8. 4 • Versions allow history of how proposal evolved • Institution-Funded and Sponsor-Funded refer to waived F&A calcs • Through Security you limit the number of people who can get to the “Submit” panel • A proposal must be in submitted status to go to the award side

F&A U Wisconsin • F&A through G/L (U Wisconsin presentation) – Staff updates trees

F&A U Wisconsin • F&A through G/L (U Wisconsin presentation) – Staff updates trees to include new projects – They do not use Projects or Grants Modules – They have successfully used this method for 9 campuses – Some campuses use PROJECT_ID chartfield and others use ORGANIZATION – Currently not using controlled budgets, however, they might implement due to grant cost overruns

F&A U Wisconsin • U Wisconsin (continued) – Good or bad? You decide…. •

F&A U Wisconsin • U Wisconsin (continued) – Good or bad? You decide…. • Trees must be updated to include new projects • They run F&A monthly – F&A through Grants can be run as often as every day • Manual calculations needed if F&A rate is anything other than one of the standard rates

Grants with U Kansas • Doug Tilghman (you see his name on the listserv

Grants with U Kansas • Doug Tilghman (you see his name on the listserv a lot) will be starting a new listserv for Grants only – probably not before June • The U of Kansas ranks 78 th in research expenditures ($224 million in 2001 – UD approx half that size) • Majority of KU grants are HHS, followed by Dept of Education • Presentation attached (selected slides)

Grants with U Kansas • KU has approx 580 sponsors • They distribute F&A

Grants with U Kansas • KU has approx 580 sponsors • They distribute F&A back to colleges and Deans • They implemented Post-Award first (using legacy for Pre-Award) • Proposal/Pre-Award side to go live Fall, 2002 • 1, 625 active projects as of 2/11/02 • 9 -10 members on Grants team • 1 consultant for a total of 5 weeks on site (recommend a large consulting budget)

Grants with U Kansas • KU did not purchase license for Accelio (Jet. Forms)

Grants with U Kansas • KU did not purchase license for Accelio (Jet. Forms) • Why not? – Accelio GM forms pack has about 35 forms in it – mostly federal – Only 2 were for post award (they only have implemented Post -Award) – License is expensive ($14, 500 plus maintenance fee) and they couldn’t justify cost for 2 forms – Also available for $20 k = GM Forms pack and design tool – Will reconsider purchasing license when Proposal/Pre-Award is implemented

Grants with U Kansas • F&A Revenue Distribution – GM F&A process based on

Grants with U Kansas • F&A Revenue Distribution – GM F&A process based on Dept ID – they were originally using Class chartfield for F&A allocations – they are changing to using Dept. ID to avoid customization • Cost Share – They had to customize and create a new panel - but only because of an internal issue with two business units

Grants with U Kansas • Billing info: – They are using A/R and Billing

Grants with U Kansas • Billing info: – They are using A/R and Billing modules • Also using Billing module for Misc Billing – They created their own A/R report – as did Western Michigan – Will still have to do some billing outside of system (sponsor specific invoices) but will still run through Billing Module to generate entries

Grants in the De. Paul World • They have been live on Grants for

Grants in the De. Paul World • They have been live on Grants for a year • Small – only $14 M in grants and contracts • Very centralized – the departments do not enter proposal information. They only have access to information through a De. Paul created access screen – and what they get is limited • A Dept. ID represents a pot of money • Used Andersen consultants • Proposal, Award and Post Award handled by different offices • Presentation attached

Grants in the De. Paul World • Rounding issue – they ignore the warning

Grants in the De. Paul World • Rounding issue – they ignore the warning box that comes up • They customized to make non-PI salary private, but allow access to PI’s to develop budgets • The “eligible PI” box was checked for all full time faculty and staff • They do not use the Time & Labor module or the Receivables module

Grants in the De. Paul World • They run reports to make sure that

Grants in the De. Paul World • They run reports to make sure that their integrations processes ran correctly. They make sure that everything balances to the G/L • The “debugging” process discussed on the 7 th slide – they said to coordinate these type of things with the IT staff first and to remove the trace when completed from the app engine • They use Billing in a limited way – they don’t have a lot of paper bills and they don’t like the generic invoice

Grants in the De. Paul World • The use the HR Position Management Module

Grants in the De. Paul World • The use the HR Position Management Module for effort reporting • They only brought ending balances in from the legacy system • They feel running F&A in Grants is much easier than allocations – They run F&A weekly, sometimes multiple times at month end as transactions get corrected

Grants in the De. Paul World • See De. Paul slides for how they

Grants in the De. Paul World • See De. Paul slides for how they handled match – “PS is awesome for internal match” - De. Paul • De. Paul changes proposal from submitted back to unsubmitted to make changes – Idea: Unless the system won’t print forms unless the proposal is in submitted status – leave as unsubmitted until awarded, make changes, then submit and move to award side

Grants with UTHSCSA • First things first…what is UTHSCSA? – University of Texas Health

Grants with UTHSCSA • First things first…what is UTHSCSA? – University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio • Approx $120 M in sponsored programs with NIH being largest sponsor • Using 1 business unit • Consultant: Allied Consultants – Consultant had strong background in Projects module which they believed was essential • Presentation attached

Grants with UTHSCSA • Basically had a team of three people develop the Grants

Grants with UTHSCSA • Basically had a team of three people develop the Grants module • Happy with 7. 5 – looking forward to 8. 4 • All data entry is done in Office of Grants Management – they will possibly decentralize this function if end-users can handle it • More than 1000 sponsors – Separate record for the agencies falling under HHS, but created a roll-up for billing and reporting purposes

Grants with UTHSCSA • They believe in PLAIN VANILLA – but recognized that a

Grants with UTHSCSA • They believe in PLAIN VANILLA – but recognized that a few mods were unavoidable – What did they modify? • Only certs from Primary project would come across to the award side – they customized to have all certs come over • Added some search fields to dialog boxes – the delivered product didn’t have enough • Added some reports (routing sheet and proposal summary) • Hid panels

Grants with UTHSCSA • Incremental implementation approach – Proposal side first (Oct 2001), still

Grants with UTHSCSA • Incremental implementation approach – Proposal side first (Oct 2001), still using COEUS and homegrown systems for Award and Post-Award functions – Post-Award next (Feb 2002) – all functionality except for F&A – F&A through Grants, A/R and Billing (Sept 2002) with other PS Financials

Grants with UTHSCSA • They are happy with the incremental approach – They were

Grants with UTHSCSA • They are happy with the incremental approach – They were able to focus on smaller pieces and make them work – Made training easier – didn’t overwhelm the users – Hid panels to avoid confusion – may “unhide” them later as users become comfortable with system

Grants with UTHSCSA • Another reason for incremental approach: – At the beginning –

Grants with UTHSCSA • Another reason for incremental approach: – At the beginning – only bring up functionality that fits in with current business process to avoid confusion – introduce more later once end users are comfortable with system

Grants with UTHSCSA • Currently they do not add budgets to proposals (I may

Grants with UTHSCSA • Currently they do not add budgets to proposals (I may have misunderstood what he meant) • They hid approximately half of the post award panels – they will send a list upon request. They found no problems in functionality after doing so • A/R and Billing modules are delayed slightly due to lack of resources – not a lack of interest in the product

Clemson Sponsored Programs • Clemson doesn’t use Projects or Grants Modules • Created web

Clemson Sponsored Programs • Clemson doesn’t use Projects or Grants Modules • Created web interfaces to load data so they didn’t have to load client on desktops • They use G/L allocations for F&A – only because they do not have Grants – Use trees – one problem – they have to make sure all projects are added to the tree • Not interested in getting Grants or Projects – the system they have is just fine

Clemson Sponsored Programs • Effort reporting is done through a custom SQL report which

Clemson Sponsored Programs • Effort reporting is done through a custom SQL report which captures data out of HR – Contact Daphne Nessler regarding effort reporting • They add 30 days to the end date to allow for after end date charges • They use a different Fund code to track cost share

Clemson Sponsored Programs • They created many special reports to run: – PI report

Clemson Sponsored Programs • They created many special reports to run: – PI report – F&A monitoring – Subcontract monitoring – Overspent accounts – Closeout reports – Award Notifications – Cost Share Summaries • Gave no detail on what they used to create the reports (not sure if n. Vision or query)