Enterprise Systems Committee
Minutes of September 28, 1998
Present: Jeff Wright; Mike Biechler; Bob Hannigan; Linda Post; Bev Taylor; Debbie
McElroberts; Fred Ryan; Bob Sneed; John Miller; Sam Edelman; Ed Masterson; Dennis
Graham, George Johnson.
1. Year 2000 Report: CSU And Campus (Taylor, L. Post)
The presentation by Linda and Bev provided another wake up call for the campus even
though we appear to be a leader in the CSU on the issue (our documentation has been
used as a model by the Chancellor's Office). The costs and impacts are high and climbing
with imbedded microchip programming impacts still not completely evaluated. Handouts
were given of estimated CSU costs by campus, chart of % completion by campus unit at
Chico (% estimated incomplete is growing as we continue to drill down), and campus
cost estimated by unit. Major mission critical areas like mainframe systems appear to be
in the best shape, but a multitude of other issues exist. A large number of problems are of
the "nuisance" variety, while others are more troublesome, and many are beyond our
control and in the hands of off campus agents like suppliers. Contingency plans will need
to be created for the eventuality that not all problems will be dealt with. The costs are
made up of personnel opportunity costs and direct costs. The reminder was made that a
memo from the President indicated that unit managers are responsible for compliance in
their areas, and ESC and IR will assist as much as possible. Additional communication
will be going out to the campus on status and needs.
Y2K issues are complex, and continuous re-assessment has to be done as we confirm
more of our own situation and as more testing is done. There is only one more budget
cycle before the Year 2000, and even in the current year, re-direction of some technology
funds coming to campus has just recently appeared to become necessary because of new
information (e.g., printer problems). As noted at the last meeting, this effort will need to
be dealt with as priority over new projects like Peoplesoft or even existing ones. Fred
asked the Y2K committee to come up with updated campus cost estimates for ESC
review.
2. Prospective Student/Admissions Software Package (Hannigan)
Bob Hannigan presented his proposal for a front-end student recruitment product that will
allow the campus to manage the critical student application process in the face of
increasing competition. The discussion of this item served as an introduction for and was
moved to item 3, below.
3. CMS and Bridge Expenditures Draft, $150,000 (McElroberts, Ryan)
$150k has been allocated off the top this year to help fund CMS/bridge projects necessary
for operation as we move to the new environment. As background for decision making, a
bridge strategy definition was offered: "Employing as financially prudent, web,
warehouse, and other technologies to satisfy Chico functional requirements not met in
current systems and that will not be otherwise met until new and functionally mature
systems have been implemented."
After much discussion, it was agreed to move ahead with the proposed project draft
including the partial funding of the software product from #2, above. The categories to be
funded are:




Technical Staff Support (Miller, partial funding)
o Total: $27,500
SIS-Plus Operational Data Store
o BMS 1st Year Contract: $35,000
o Oracle Student Assistant Technical Staff: $8,800
o Total: $43,800
Simware Salvo Maintenance Contract
o 98/99 Software Contract:
o Total: $1,987
Prospective Student/Admission Application
o Total: $76,713 (partial funding)
4. Readiness (McElroberts, Ryan)
John Miller presented the news from the Chancellor's Office.




The system has a signed contract with PeopleSoft on the general conditions of the
new relationship.
1. The system will fund the software license off the top, but the majority of
costs will be borne by the campuses.
2. Regional centers will be centrally funded to some extent.
3. Maintenance costs will be paid by participant campuses starting from year
two after the receipt of the software at the central system office.
4. For those campuses choosing to participate, a commitment for the
installation of the first module at the end of three years and all modules by
some future date.
5. A campus decision whether or not to participate must be made by one year
from the Oct 7th meeting where the agreement will be announced.
6. CMS Board meeting on Oct 7th will begin to provide firmer dollar figures
and will provide more detail on the contract contents, and thus will
provide us with a more realistic planning framework.
The draft financial and organizational charts were distributed
The ESC analysis of issues will be moved to the ESC sub-committee (funding,
timing, prioritization, etc.)
Arno Rethans will be supporting the ESC in this analysis including issues like
campus cost/benefit.

The next meeting of the full ESC will be called when the sub-committee has
information to report. ESC Members are asked to hold open our Monday 11am
time slot, because we may need to call the next ESC meetings on short notice.
A model for a more moderate, as opposed to a more immediate, implementation schedule
will be presented and considered. There are arguments for both approaches and both need
to be assessed in terms of most benefit to the campus.