BUSINESS SERVICES COMMITTEE (BSC)
Meeting Notes
November 6 2015
1:30 – 3:00 pm
FAC 228D
I.
2015 – 2016 Priorities Discussion
The priorities tied to BSC are: Oversee ASMP, Implement the TA for ASMP,
Determine BACS replacement, and ServiceNow implementation.
Q. Where would CCB fit into this list?
A. These are just priorities, not necessarily every project that we are working on.
Q. Are we approving all ITS governance priorities?
A. No, we are adding our own priorities. We could add CCB.
Q. Why isn’t all of the ASMP items less than one section?
A. It could be added together. Separate because we wanted it split up to dual
governance and they are two different things. We could lump them back
together.
Changes to be made to the document:
-Add President’s Three E’s: Excellence, Efficiency, and Effectiveness
-Add Committee names next to each priority
-Combine “Implement the Technical Architecture for ASMP” and “IT Architecture
and Infrastructure Project Oversight”
-May add Service Desk expansion to include ASMP, System Management, Remote
Support, and Shared Services. (Not sure if a priority, but do want to set up a
committee to help oversee this. Do not want to put it as a priority before we
know more about it. It’s an ongoing project. Covered in ServiceNow).
Q. What does implementing funding strategy mean?
A. We have already implemented a funding strategy. We need to look at the
market to look for a replacement.
Brad will update the priority list.
II.
Change Coordination Process Update
Kristi Fisher presented the Scope of Work for the Change Coordination
Subcommittee. Handout includes members, charges, scope, and responsibility of
members. Goal is to want campus to have incentives to fill out the Qualtrix form.
Will want to put a searchable database that will allow everyone to see other
projects that different individuals are working on. Must submit what you’re
working on by March 1st. The committee will start piloting the form immediately
with real use cases.
Memos will come out from the President’s Office to Dean and VP to encourage
support and explain to campus that this is a major focus going forward. Memos
will be approved before distribution. Subcommittee will agree to review
anything Kristi writes.
Q. What things do not have to be submitted?
A. If it does not affect any other units or if your unit does not withdrawal
resources that you have already committed prior.
Need to make clear on what “Graduation Management” means. Call it graduation
initiative to avoid confusion.
Q. Will things be grandfathered in?
A. Some things will be grandfathered in if it’s in the unit’s goals but any
significant changes will have to be submitted.
Committee requested to see the SITAB one page endorsement. Kristi will give
access to the committee for the Sharepoint subcommittee website.
III.
ITS Funding Models
Julienne Vanderziel presented the new ITS Funding Model for the new
architecture.
Guiding principles:
• Funding models should promote adoption of centrally offered services
• Campus-wide Services should be considered for central funding, with
governance approval
• CSU specific Services should be charged to the CSU
o Some services may be partially centrally funded and partially
usage/seat based funded by the CSU.
• ITS should have consistent billing methods and properties (flat fee, direct
pay, usage based, etc.)
• Focus on ASMP services
o Only those services implemented or modified by ASMP will be
affected initially. Other services will be brought into the model
over time and in preparation for ServiceNow implementation.
Q. Do I have to pay?
A. If it’s a central system, then you are not going to pay. But if it’s something that
is special for a certain department, then a fee will be incurred. If not, almost all,
fees will be centrally funded. You pay for the developer not the pipeline.
Committee is very concerned with the use of the word “funding.” Need to be
careful on how it is presented to campus. It is confusing on what the message is
here. May have more support if don’t use the word funded. Need to word it in a
way that does to convey that it is part of the existing service that is provided
centrally by campus. Committee suggested to add a matrix that has the before
and after of the “funding” model.
Julienne explained that it is not a change. It’s a simplification of how units will be
billed. Goal is to relay to campus that the new architecture will not have units
incur more charges. New funding model will not change how things will be
funded, but fees could change. Julienne will create a more simple statement that
relates to ASMP tech arch and unit’s expectation for funding. Use Francis’
example.
Q. Is a document actually needed?
A. Yes, because departments are asking about how they will be billed.
IV.
Workday Efficiency Tracking Group
Brad Englert is leading the Workday Efficiency Tracking Group. The group has
not met yet. Identified that after playbacks would be the primetime to capture
the changes between the two systems. Optimal time to find what has improved
from before and what can be fixed for the future. This is a good place for faculty
to be involved to weigh in the new changes. Brad will speak to Ohio State on
their $200M savings plan with using Workday.
Q. What would it include?
A. Everything.
Q. Has everyone seen what WorkDay looks like?
A. No.
Requests for next meeting’s agenda:
ServiceNow Update – Jamie Southerland
Workday Demonstration
Drupal New Template Demonstration