1 / 36

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 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

Ava
Télécharger la présentation

HEUG 2002 LAS VEGAS March 4-7, 2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HEUG 2002 LAS VEGAS March 4-7, 2002

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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 PowerPoint presentation – will pass on when I have it

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. PS Grants 8.4 • Presented by Barry Hickson • Barry.Hickson@PeopleSoft.com • Will support latest PHS398 and PHS2590 • Supports specific securities: • Operator ID • Dept ID tree • Commitment control (replaces budget checking) allows for more flexibility

  8. PS Grants 8.4 • Forms: • PHS 298 • PHS 2590 • SF272 • SF269 • SF270 • SF1034/1035 • Generic Invoice

  9. 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%)

  10. 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 • DePaul, KU and U Texas are using Grants • They all said this method was easier than G/L

  11. 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

  12. 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 • DePaul merely ignores the warnings

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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 78th 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)

  18. 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)

  19. Grants with U Kansas • KU did not purchase license for Accelio (JetForms) • 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 $20k = GM Forms pack and design tool • Will reconsider purchasing license when Proposal/Pre-Award is implemented

  20. 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 DeptID 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

  21. 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

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

  23. Grants in the DePaul 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

  24. Grants in the DePaul 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 7th 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

  25. Grants in the DePaul 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

  26. Grants in the DePaul World • See DePaul slides for how they handled match • “PS is awesome for internal match” - DePaul • DePaul 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

  27. Grants with UTHSCSA • First things first…what is UTHSCSA? • University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio • Approx $120M 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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 nVision or query)

More Related