University Space Utilization System Business Case
I. Recommendations for the Steering Committee
The University Space Utilization System (USUS) Team [see Appendix C for the USUS
Team Charge], with the endorsement of the Student Enrollment Services Process Owners
Group (SESPOG), recommends that the Integrated Systems/Process Simplification
Steering Committee:




Supports the purchase of Resource 25, with an unlimited seat license (R25), for
implementation by the University Registrar (UREG), Newcomb Hall, and the
schools, other offices and departments as deemed appropriate. R25 will be used
to schedule spaces for both academic and extracurricular activities.
Supports the commitment of the required Information Technology and
Communication’s (ITC) resources beginning in August 2004, to support the
University’s implementation of R25.
Supports the commitment of permanent addenda funds for one full-time (FTE)
system administrator/programmer in UREG effective July 1, 2004.
Approves the establishment of a process simplification team to study current
practices with regard to activity reservations and pursue opportunities to
consolidate responsibilities and/or streamline the process. In addition, the team
will update existing space reservation policies.
II. Case for the University Registrar
Upgrade to Resource 25 for UREG
The University Registrar (UREG) currently uses Schedule 25 and 25E for the initial
allocation of academic space and the management of 180 classroom spaces in the schools
of Architecture, Arts and Sciences, Commerce, Education, Engineering, and Nursing.
Schedule 25 (S25) is an industry-leading academic scheduling program, which employs a
sophisticated algorithm for the automated assignment of thousands of academic courses
into appropriate classrooms. Once S25 allocates academic space for courses, this
information is uploaded into 25E, which is then used throughout a semester to manage
academic spaces, move classes as necessary, and reserve spaces for ad hoc academic
events and extracurricular activities. 25E is managed by UREG and used by staff in the
schools of Architecture, Commerce, Education, Engineering, and Nursing. It offers backend functionalities; that is, administrators use it to reserve classrooms, manage space
data, and run reports, but it cannot provide calendars showing the availability of the
spaces.
CollegeNET, which has developed these products, will no longer be supporting 25E.
Instead, 25E has evolved into R25, which provides a Web viewer to search for spaces,
calendars for viewing availability, filters for viewing varying types of events around
IS/PS Steering Committee
Grounds (e.g., athletic, performance, academic), and electronic forms for requesting
spaces.
UREG needs to upgrade to R25 to be able to maintain state-of-the-art performance,
functionality, and the support required for scheduling academic spaces. Without the
funding and ITC resources necessary to upgrade to R25, UREG will have to continue
using the unsupported S25 and 25E software. A delay in upgrading to R25 will become
problematic if either product fails.
III. Case for Newcomb Hall
Newcomb Hall upgrade to Resource 25; change for the future
Newcomb Hall is committed to implementing R25. Newcomb currently uses Events
Management System (EMS), a reservations system developed by Dean Evans Associates,
which is an industry leader in events reservations and management. EMS is used
predominately by student unions. EMS lacks an equivalent to the S25 algorithm and
therefore cannot provide automated academic scheduling, making R25 the solution to
effectively support both academic class scheduling and extracurricular activities
scheduling.
Newcomb Hall, which manages approximately two dozen spaces with EMS, grants full
administrative access to five staff. However, EMS cannot match the accessibility
features of R25, which for a given academic space can be configured to protect the
priority of academic scheduling by limiting access to UREG until a given date, then
allowing broader access to other staff who may schedule non-academic events. R25 can
also be configured to limit access to certain staff for reservations during classrooms hours
each weekday and broaden access for evening and weekend reservations.
Prior to the work of USUS, Newcomb had intended to upgrade to EMS Enterprise, which
provides a Web viewer through which students, faculty, and staff may view events and
request reservations. However, it is now Newcomb’s intent to implement R25 along with
UREG, thereby enabling the University community to access more spaces through a
single Web interface and maintain a single system to manage UREG and Newcomb space
reservations.
IV. Case for the University
A team to study the reservations process
The collaborative efforts to build cases for change regarding UREG and Newcomb
provide a larger opportunity for process simplification. USUS accomplished preliminary
process work but strongly recommends the establishment of a process simplification team
to study current practices with regard to activity reservations and pursue opportunities to
consolidate responsibilities and/or streamline the process. In addition, the team will
update existing space reservation policies.
2
IS/PS Steering Committee
Currently, the processes for activities reservations in the 180 academic spaces under
UREG’s control are decentralized. UREG handles activities reservations for spaces in
the College, but the schools of Architecture, Commerce, Education, Engineering, and
Nursing each handle activities reservations in their own spaces. If a student organization
wishes to hold a meeting in Thornton Hall, it must contact Engineering. If Thornton Hall
is unavailable, the organization may contact Education about a space in Ruffner Hall, or
Commerce for a space in Monroe Hall, or UREG for a space in New Cabell Hall, etc.
Preliminary work shows that centralizing the scheduling of activities reservations for
spaces in all of the schools would provide the following benefits [see Appendix B for the
current list of University administrators reserving spaces]:



single point of contact; a simplified process to request space;
improved potential to maximize the use of University spaces while providing
quality program advising, and finally;
strategic concentration of events into a core group of buildings, which would
maximize the efforts of the University’s security and housekeeping staff.
If the University decides to maintain the current reservations process, USUS believes that
the community will benefit from accessing more spaces through the single R25 interface.
It should be noted that R25’s security features will accommodate any degree of
centralization or decentralization.
By adding more spaces into R25, the University would also be able to create
comprehensive reports on the use of buildings on Grounds; benefiting security, daily
maintenance, cleaning, parking and transportation management, special event and capital
planning.
V. Best Practices
A team to study the reservations process, facilitating implementation
Benchmarking has provided highly divergent examples, from the University of
Richmond, which has centralized virtually all activities reservations through a single
office, to Emory University, which has more than 100 space administrators. The
following are a few of the institutions that will provide models and best practices for the
implementation of R25: Stanford, Princeton, Miami of Ohio, University of Wisconsin at
Madison, Emory University, Kansas State University, Maine, University of Vermont, the
College of William & Mary, James Madison University, and University of Richmond.
VI. Key Implementation Factors
Interfacing with ISIS and/or a New Student System
25E currently interfaces with ISIS, providing data sharing that enables ISIS, as the
system of record, to provide up-to-date information. This interface was custom built by
3
IS/PS Steering Committee
ITC at considerable time and expense, and any consideration of a new reservations
system must weigh the time and expense of creating a new interface. Technical staff
from CollegeNET have asserted that the system architecture of R25 is very similar to that
of 25E, and in their opinion, the University should be able to adapt its current interface to
connect R25 with ISIS. ITC staff have so far seen no reason to doubt its adaptability, but
until they can actually look at R25, they cannot confirm this assertion.
R25, as an industry leader, has interfaces with all of the major student systems, including
Oracle, SCT Banner, and Peoplesoft.
Information Technology and Communication’s resources
Current high-priority ISIS projects, such as the switch from Federal Direct loans to
FFELP loans, preclude any work on the interface until at least August 2004. Information
Technology and Communication’s resources are essential to the success of the
implementation. The project is not a candidate for outsourcing due to the knowledge
base required regarding ISIS.
UREG FTE
The R25 project will require significant time and an effort similar to that expended on
DARS for UREG. R25 can be viewed as a warm-up for the new student system. The
student system implementation will require staffing of system administrator/programmertype positions. The R25 project approval would expedite the need for one new position.
The R25 project provides an opportunity to build consensus across the University which
will facilitate the implementation of a new student system.
Sole-Source Procurement
Although USUS initially considered two potential products to provide these services, it
became apparent that only one product, R25, offers the full range of necessary features.
In addition, the team considered Corporate Time and the Oracle Training Administration
(OTA) scheduling systems but they are designed to serve very different purposes and
lack many of R25’s key functionalities. Neither system provides for the automated
assignment of academic courses in appropriate classrooms. However, the team believes
that both products would continue to serve important functions at the University even if
R25 is implemented broadly.
USUS confirmed with Procurement Services that no other Virginia public colleges or
universities have contracts in place through which the University could purchase R25.
A sole source procurement will be negotiated by Procurement Services if USUS is given
the authority to pursue the purchase of R25. Procurement Services has reviewed
preliminary information provided by USUS to confirm that this is the appropriate way to
handle this procurement.
4
IS/PS Steering Committee
VII. Building the Case for the University Investment
Refer to Appendix A for the case to purchase an unlimited seat license
Recommendation
Implement R25 broadly, purchasing an unlimited seat license. This implementation
would include UREG, associated schools, Newcomb Hall, and other key space
administrators as deemed appropriate, such as Intramural-Recreational Sports, the
Rotunda, and Old Cabell Hall.
Costs of Recommendation
An unlimited seat license is equal in cost to licensing for 37 seats. Implementing R25 in
UREG and in the schools of Architecture, Arts and Sciences, Commerce, Education,
Engineering, and Nursing, requires approximately 22 seat licenses. Adding Newcomb
Hall, requires approximately 30 seat licenses. If we don’t choose the unlimited license,
there will be a $5,000 upgrade fee assessed each time seats are added. However, for just
$4,500 [difference between $32,500 and $37,000] the University can move from 30 to 37
seats and have the flexibility to add seats as needed in the future at no cost.
The unlimited seat license is recommended so that the University has flexibility for as
broad of an implementation as possible. Refer to the far right column of Appendix A
under “University” for one-time and ongoing costs.
Proposed Time line for Approval of University’s Investments
Commitment to fund UREG FTE by June 14, 2004 [effective July 1, 2004]
Commitment to purchase Resource 25 by June 14, 2004
Commitment of ITC resources to begin work by August 2004
Commitment to establish Process Simplification team, November 20, 2003
5