Attendees: William Aguilar, David DeMauro, Lorraine Frost, Lydia Ortega, Jerry Pritchard,
Paul Vicknair, Dale West
Guest: Josetti Fields, Patrick Murray, IO Consulting
HR vs. 8 Project Status - Patrick Murray of IO Consulting
- IO’s Internal Project Review document was distributed and discussed. IO expressed that its main concern is the transferring of PeopleSoft knowledge and ownership of project tasks by team members. IO Consulting will summaries these concerns in a written document.
- Overall project status is doing very well.
- Data Conversion - data has been cleaned up with new fields added. David D. voiced concerns regarding departments not reconciling their accounts. David D. suggested that we sample some departments to see if they are keeping current with reconciling. Also, find out how many departments are still using shadow systems to reconcile. IO offered to give a reconciling presentation using information on what was learned from year-end activities. Patrick M. and Lorraine F. will discuss possible options.
- Patrick M. stressed the need to continue upgrade support after cutover and cautioned that when the CMS team returns to their regular positions, their job duties will be significantly different from pre-PeopleSoft days. Staff will be needed to review fixes and patches from SOSS, which will continue after cutover.
- Lorraine F. is working with the Information Security Office (see hand out) to develop training and a security access request form. Security training will be mandatory.
- Training has been streamlined. Administrative support personnel will need approximately 16 hours of training. This training will be offered in 1 to 3 hour segments.
- On the Tree, department names or account codes need to be changed to better align with our campus organizational chart. IO to submit a detailed proposal.
- Recruitment – the majority of the system is already in place. Human Resources and Academic Personnel have a desire to implement, but the resource issues (adequate department staff allocated to enter data) are a problem. From IO Consulting’s view, the sooner this process is implemented the better – in January or February 2003. It works in our favor in that the project timeline is shorter (2-3 months), which means the cost will be lower. If we wait too long, six months or more, they will have to start from the beginning, which will include a longer timeline of the project (6-8 months), which will increase the cost. Patrick M. will work with Josetti F. and Lorraine F. to see what efforts it will take to implement this portion of the system.
- CMS Implementation of the Foundation – Monterey Bay, San Jose, and Sonoma has implemented this portion of the system. CSU Northridge is implementing at the present time. IO Consulting was asked to submit a preliminary analysis of this process. Six months is the suggested timeline for this project.
Audit Update
- CSUSB has not been chosen to be audited, at this time.
Next meeting is scheduled for September 30, 2002 at 8:00 a.m. Please submit agenda items to Lorraine Frost at lfrost@csusb.edu.
Minutes submitted by Aminia Clark