HEUG 2002
LAS VEGAS
March 4-7, 2002
Who did I meet?
• Other schools to keep in touch with:
– Ohio State University Research Foundation – much larger
than UD – but bringing up Grants in July 2003
– University of South Florida – about the same size – going live
July 2003
– University of Maryland – Baltimore – we’re practically
neighbors – might be good to keep in touch – they have not
committed to implementing grants
– University of Missouri – Columbia – Deborah Caselman was
in agreement with Ben Martin that processing F&A through
Grants was the way to go
Who else?
• Andersen consulting has worked with
several of the schools
• Deloitte Consulting
– Frank Mollo – he’s located in New Jersey. He
helped Western Michigan implement. Nice guy
– was willing to answer questions
The Good News First
• The Grants sessions were heavily attended – a
lot of interest in the product
• The Grants 8.4 presentation was good –
navigation much easier
• There are plenty of consultants willing to help
(Andersen, Allied and Deloitte seem to have the
most experience)
• Waiting to receive a copy of the PS PowerPoint
presentation – will pass on when I have it
More Good News
• PS 8.4 is committed to supporting “best
practices” as outlined by the Hackett Group
– Best Practice = Efficiency+Effectiveness =
World Class Performance
The Bad News….
• The rounding issue still not resolved
• Billing appears to be on an accrual basis –
not sure about this yet
• Although heavily attended – there aren’t too
many schools live on Grants. Most that I
talked to are planning 8.4 in July 2003
PS Grants 8.4
• Presented by Barry Hickson
– Barry.Hickson@PeopleSoft.com
• Will support latest PHS398 and PHS2590
• Supports specific securities:
– Operator ID
– Dept ID tree
• Commitment control (replaces budget
checking) allows for more flexibility
PS Grants 8.4
• Forms:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
PHS 298
PHS 2590
SF272
SF269
SF270
SF1034/1035
Generic Invoice
PS Grants 8.4
• F&A, IDC, Overhead (pick a name):
– Multiple offsets
– Three Computations:
• SFA
• WFA (waived F&A)
• CFA (cost share F&A)
– Store by:
• Institution (e.g. UD = 51%, 26%, etc)
• Sponsor (e.g. AHA will only pay 8%)
• Funded (the specified award will only pay 5%)
PS Grants 8.4
• F&A (continued)
• Can be calculated through Grants Module
or through G/L Allocations
– U Wisconsin Milwaukee is using G/L
• Seemed complicated
– DePaul, KU and U Texas are using Grants
• They all said this method was easier than G/L
PS Grants 8.4
• Contracts Module now required to run
Grants Module
– Executive Team will investigate
– Comes to E&G due to Commercial/E&G merge
– Good news: Don’t know. We haven’t seen
module to know what it does
– Bad news: We have to learn and set-up another
module
PS Grants 8.4
• Creating a proposal will bring in certifications
from the institution level – there’s no need to
enter all of the certifications on all proposals as
long as they are in institution profile – at the
proposal level you add proposal specific certs
• Rounding Issue on Proposal not fixed in 8.4
– I raised the question and Barry said it was
something they need to look at
– DePaul merely ignores the warnings
PS Grants 8.4
• Professional Data:
– When you hit the “load” button on publications,
current funding, etc. it pulls from “Maintain
Professionals” which gets its data from HR
• Sponsors:
– Define a finite number of budget categories
needed for a sponsor and those will be the only
ones available when preparing the budget
PS Grants 8.4
• Versions allow history of how proposal evolved
• Institution-Funded and Sponsor-Funded refer to
waived F&A calcs
• Through Security you limit the number of people
who can get to the “Submit” panel
• A proposal must be in submitted status to go to
the award side
F&A U Wisconsin
• F&A through G/L (U Wisconsin presentation)
– Staff updates trees to include new projects
– They do not use Projects or Grants Modules
– They have successfully used this method for 9
campuses
– Some campuses use PROJECT_ID chartfield and
others use ORGANIZATION
– Currently not using controlled budgets, however, they
might implement due to grant cost overruns
F&A U Wisconsin
• U Wisconsin (continued)
– Good or bad? You decide….
• Trees must be updated to include new projects
• They run F&A monthly – F&A through Grants can
be run as often as every day
• Manual calculations needed if F&A rate is anything
other than one of the standard rates
Grants with U Kansas
• Doug Tilghman (you see his name on the
listserv a lot) will be starting a new listserv
for Grants only – probably not before June
• The U of Kansas ranks 78th in research
expenditures ($224 million in 2001 – UD
approx half that size)
• Majority of KU grants are HHS, followed
by Dept of Education
• Presentation attached (selected slides)
Grants with U Kansas
• KU has approx 580 sponsors
• They distribute F&A back to colleges and Deans
• They implemented Post-Award first (using legacy for
Pre-Award)
• Proposal/Pre-Award side to go live Fall, 2002
• 1,625 active projects as of 2/11/02
• 9-10 members on Grants team
• 1 consultant for a total of 5 weeks on site (recommend
a large consulting budget)
Grants with U Kansas
• KU did not purchase license for Accelio (JetForms)
• Why not?
– Accelio GM forms pack has about 35 forms in it – mostly
federal
– Only 2 were for post award (they only have implemented
Post-Award)
– License is expensive ($14,500 plus maintenance fee) and they
couldn’t justify cost for 2 forms
– Also available for $20k = GM Forms pack and design tool
– Will reconsider purchasing license when Proposal/Pre-Award
is implemented
Grants with U Kansas
• F&A Revenue Distribution
– GM F&A process based on Dept ID – they were
originally using Class chartfield for F&A allocations
– they are changing to using DeptID to avoid
customization
• Cost Share
– They had to customize and create a new panel - but
only because of an internal issue with two business
units
Grants with U Kansas
• Billing info:
– They are using A/R and Billing modules
• Also using Billing module for Misc Billing
– They created their own A/R report – as did
Western Michigan
– Will still have to do some billing outside of
system (sponsor specific invoices) but will still
run through Billing Module to generate entries
Grants in the DePaul World
• They have been live on Grants for a year
• Small – only $14M in grants and contracts
• Very centralized – the departments do not enter
proposal information. They only have access to
information through a DePaul created access screen –
and what they get is limited
• A DeptID represents a pot of money
• Used Andersen consultants
• Proposal, Award and Post Award handled by different
offices
• Presentation attached
Grants in the DePaul World
• Rounding issue – they ignore the warning box
that comes up
• They customized to make non-PI salary private,
but allow access to PI’s to develop budgets
• The “eligible PI” box was checked for all full
time faculty and staff
• They do not use the Time & Labor module or the
Receivables module
Grants in the DePaul World
• They run reports to make sure that their
integrations processes ran correctly. They make
sure that everything balances to the G/L
• The “debugging” process discussed on the 7th
slide – they said to coordinate these type of
things with the IT staff first and to remove the
trace when completed from the app engine
• They use Billing in a limited way – they don’t
have a lot of paper bills and they don’t like the
generic invoice
Grants in the DePaul World
• The use the HR Position Management
Module for effort reporting
• They only brought ending balances in from
the legacy system
• They feel running F&A in Grants is much
easier than allocations
– They run F&A weekly, sometimes multiple
times at month end as transactions get corrected
Grants in the DePaul World
• See DePaul slides for how they handled match
– “PS is awesome for internal match” - DePaul
• DePaul changes proposal from submitted back
to unsubmitted to make changes
– Idea: Unless the system won’t print forms unless
the proposal is in submitted status – leave as
unsubmitted until awarded, make changes, then
submit and move to award side
Grants with UTHSCSA
• First things first…what is UTHSCSA?
– University of Texas Health Science Center at San
Antonio
• Approx $120M in sponsored programs with NIH
being largest sponsor
• Using 1 business unit
• Consultant: Allied Consultants
– Consultant had strong background in Projects
module which they believed was essential
• Presentation attached
Grants with UTHSCSA
• Basically had a team of three people develop
the Grants module
• Happy with 7.5 – looking forward to 8.4
• All data entry is done in Office of Grants
Management – they will possibly decentralize
this function if end-users can handle it
• More than 1000 sponsors
– Separate record for the agencies falling under HHS,
but created a roll-up for billing and reporting
purposes
Grants with UTHSCSA
• They believe in PLAIN VANILLA – but
recognized that a few mods were unavoidable
– What did they modify?
• Only certs from Primary project would come across to the
award side – they customized to have all certs come over
• Added some search fields to dialog boxes – the delivered
product didn’t have enough
• Added some reports (routing sheet and proposal
summary)
• Hid panels
Grants with UTHSCSA
• Incremental implementation approach
– Proposal side first (Oct 2001), still using
COEUS and homegrown systems for Award
and Post-Award functions
– Post-Award next (Feb 2002) – all functionality
except for F&A
– F&A through Grants, A/R and Billing (Sept
2002) with other PS Financials
Grants with UTHSCSA
• They are happy with the incremental
approach
– They were able to focus on smaller pieces and
make them work
– Made training easier – didn’t overwhelm the
users
– Hid panels to avoid confusion – may “unhide”
them later as users become comfortable with
system
Grants with UTHSCSA
• Another reason for incremental approach:
– At the beginning – only bring up functionality
that fits in with current business process to
avoid confusion – introduce more later once
end users are comfortable with system
Grants with UTHSCSA
• Currently they do not add budgets to proposals (I
may have misunderstood what he meant)
• They hid approximately half of the post award
panels – they will send a list upon request. They
found no problems in functionality after doing so
• A/R and Billing modules are delayed slightly due
to lack of resources – not a lack of interest in the
product
Clemson Sponsored Programs
• Clemson doesn’t use Projects or Grants
Modules
• Created web interfaces to load data so they
didn’t have to load client on desktops
• They use G/L allocations for F&A – only
because they do not have Grants
– Use trees – one problem – they have to make sure all
projects are added to the tree
• Not interested in getting Grants or Projects – the
system they have is just fine
Clemson Sponsored Programs
• Effort reporting is done through a custom SQL
report which captures data out of HR
– Contact Daphne Nessler regarding effort reporting
• They add 30 days to the end date to allow for
after end date charges
• They use a different Fund code to track cost
share
Clemson Sponsored Programs
• They created many special reports to run:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
PI report
F&A monitoring
Subcontract monitoring
Overspent accounts
Closeout reports
Award Notifications
Cost Share Summaries
• Gave no detail on what they used to create
the reports (not sure if nVision or query)