ePayment Core Service Team
ePayment…a
Outline
• About the team
• Explored options
– MILER consultant
– TouchNet and U.S. Bank
– Pros & Cons
•
•
•
•
•
Determined campus needs
Made vendor recommendation
Defined pilot project
Reviewed vendor requirements
Next steps
Justification
• Project:
– UWM departments seek a common electronic
payment system that supports web access.
• Team:
– Provide coordinated guidance and assistance
in developing departmental e-commerce
solutions.
About The Team
• ePayment Core Service Team
• Mission: Plan for and implement a
consistent, fully supported core electronic
payment environment for UWM faculty and
staff, community partners, alumni,
students, and the general public.
• Kick-off meeting: October 1, 2003
Team Membership
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lana Dyer, I&MT (Team Lead)
Michael Hostad, I&MT & UWM Webmaster
Ed Nieskes, BFS
Ken Buelow, Graduate School (replaced alan Swatek 5/05)
Carol Edquist, Center for International Ed.
Sue Thomas, Peck School of the Arts
Bud Majkowski, Auxiliary Services
Tom Bjornstad, Foundation
Jason Lusk, Alumni Association (left UWM Spring 05)
Kathy Clark, School of Continuing Education
Ed Rodriguez, Nursing/Social Welfare/Health Sciences
Andy Ritter, UWM Libraries
John Bartelt, L&S
Kathy Heath, OIT
John Grozik, I&MT
Wendy Luljak (joined 5/05)
Team Requirements
• It was required that the team build upon
software and practices already in place to
develop a plan to provide core ePayment
services to the campus community.
Team Expectations
• Review and document the existing ePayment
infrastructure
• Make recommendations on a core supportable
service that addresses customer needs
• Develop a communication plan
• Develop a plan that is consistent with the UWM
portal
• Be sensitive to differences on campus
• Follow a phased approach
Exploring Options
• Options explored by MILER consultant,
Warren Alkire
– Using the delivered APIs (application program
interface) to access the TouchNet Payment
Gateway already owned by UWM
– Use the ePayment option provided by U.S.
Bank
– Purchase the TouchNet Marketplace to
leverage the existing Payment Gateway
Vendor Presentations
• Met with TouchNet
• Attended day-long seminar on TouchNet’s
Marketplace module
• Held conference call with U.S. Bank
• Conducted in-person meeting with U.S.
Bank
Option: TouchNet API
• UWM builds custom web applications for
each department requesting ePayment
• Use APIs to connect to existing TouchNet
infrastructure for transaction processing
Option: TouchNet
Marketplace
• Use APIs to connect to existing TouchNet
infrastructure
• Purchase TouchNet’s ‘Marketplace’
software which provides a pre-built
front-end for electronic transactions
and online storefronts
Option: U.S. Bank
• U.S. Bank hosts web pages that support
electronic transactions
• All credit card information stored at U.S.
Bank, not UWM
• Integrates with Shared Financial System
• Online storefronts built by UWM
Option Comparison
License
Cost
Effort
Timeframe
Risk
TouchNet API
High
development
costs.
Significant
in-house
development
efforts
Not
determined
High: Credit
card numbers
stored in-house.
TouchNet
Marketplace
High licensing
costs.
Medium level
in-house
development
efforts
Less time to
implement
than API
solution
High: Credit
card numbers
stored in-house.
U.S. Bank
Minimal Pricing contract
exists between
U.S. Bank and
State of WI
Medium level
in-house
development
efforts
1 month for
U.S. Bank
setup.
Unknown
development
time
Low: Credit
card numbers
stored offsite at
U.S. Bank
Determine Campus Needs
• Input from each represented area of the
Core Service Team
• Made presentation to Unit Business
Representatives (UBR)
• Built online survey to solicit campus needs
• Solicited input from colleagues at the State
level
Vendor Recommendation
• Recommended U.S. Bank as most viable partner
• Reasoning:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Existing contract with State
Positive working relationship with other State agencies
Provided most secure solution
Eliminated transaction fees for credit card and ACH payments
Minimal initial setup cost
Easily integrates with existing campus web applications
No hardware purchase necessary
Fast turnaround time for setup and service
Flexible enough to accommodate University’s financial
infrastructure
Define Pilot Project
• Pilot Project: UWM Foundation
• Reasoning:
– Small, but encompassing scope
– Familiarity with e-commerce solutions
– U.S. Bank solution provides significant cost
savings
– Understanding of Core Service Team
objectives
– They volunteered!
Partnering with U.S. Bank
• Assigned U.S. Bank account and technical
representatives
• Assigned Core Service Team liaisons
• Completed 50-page vendor
‘Implementation Questionnaire’
• Reviewed State contract with vendor
Next Steps
• Account setup with U.S. Bank
• Configuration, branding, and integration by I&MT
Web Development team
• Targeted pilot go-live: Mid-August ’04
• Targeted pilot end date: December ’04
• Develop second pilot project in parallel with
Foundation project
• Evaluate outcomes of pilot projects
• After evaluations of pilot projects, determine
procedure for campus-wide rollout
Next Steps – Reality
• Account setup with U.S. Bank
• Configuration, branding, and integration by I&MT Web Development team
 The first two “Next Steps” took much more time in development than
anticipated. Work was continually in progress among U.S. Bank, I&MT Web
Development and the UWM Foundation. The rest of the team did not meet.
• Targeted pilot go-live: Mid-August ’04
 Go-live happened May ‘05
• Targeted pilot end date: December ’04
 Foundation pilot will continue as a feature of the Foundation’s Web site.
 Core team will resume meetings in May ‘05 to choose next projects and begin
assessment of project to date
 Develop second pilot project in parallel with Foundation project
Two to three additional pilots will go-live mid-July.
• Evaluate outcomes of pilot projects
• After evaluations of pilot projects, determine procedure for campus-wide rollout for
Fall Semester ‘05
An Update: 9/27/05
• 3 sites currently using ePayment system
– UWM Foundation
http://www3.uwm.edu/org/alumni/foundation.epay.cfm
– Panther Prowl
http://www.pantherprowl.net
– Katrina Relief
http://emergencyfund.uwm.edu
Progress since
Foundation Pilot
• Application to merge data from U.S. Bank
with data collected at UWM
• “Test” instance created
• Improvement (maybe?) in U.S. Bank
response time
• Ability to handle multiple return URLs
• Automatic remittance file transfers
Pros of the System
•
•
•
•
•
•
Security
Check processing
Real-time processing
Fast development turnaround time
Transaction fees covered by State
Minimal setup fees
Cons of the System
•
•
•
•
•
Inflexibility
Lack of training/documentation
Many steps to make a payment
Duplicative data entry
Unresponsive U.S. Bank reps
Developing New Apps
• Development should be handled by I&MT Web
Development department
• Minimum 2 week lead time for standalone
ePayment apps
• What the client needs to provide:
–
–
–
–
–
Valid UDDS
Merchant ID
Return URL
Document detailing form to be created
Desired go-live date