Planning

Shared Services Feedback Summary

Between June 10th and June 29th, there were 86 responses.

  • 61 comments on travel
  • 75 comments on proposal development
  • 54 comments on purchasing
  • 41 comments on other supported concepts
  • 44 comments on implementation feedback

Travel

  • The current system:
    • It is great! Excellent customer service and help.
    • It does not work. It takes too much time to get a response or items processed.
  • Time/Response Concerns
    • Worry that centralization would potentially slow down the processing time for reimbursement.
      • Slow responses or availability if travel needs to be arranged short notice.
    • If you have any kind of complicated travel requirements you have to have someone specifically to talk to, not just wait for the next available operator to take your call.
  • Actual cost savings?
    • Data provided does not give enough information of what actual cost savings would come from doing this.
    • How reallocated funding will be determined (some units do not have a lot of travel compared to others, but would like to participate)
  • Problems with Concur
    • A centralized Travel office could benefit the University as the implementation of Concur was not without issues and some of those issues have yet to be resolved.
    • Concur had poor implementation, and the enforcement of rules and regulations.
    • Comments such as 鈥淐oncur is a nightmare,鈥 鈥淐oncur is horrible,鈥 鈥溾s painful to use,鈥 鈥渄oes not work for students and non-employees,鈥 鈥淧lease get rid of Concur,鈥 and 鈥淐oncur鈥as cost me countless hours in lost productivity.鈥
  • Memo did not clearly define the proposal
    • How to ensure the travel is routed appropriately and approved by the appropriate fiscal manager?  
    • More thought needs to be given to how existing travel coordinators in the units are melded into a shared office. 
    • Recommend an incremental approach: opt-in during FY21 and reevaluate in Spring 2021.
  • Research/Field Work Related Travel
    • Concerns this proposal will reduce quality of services to researchers and negatively impact research dollars.
    • Having dedicated people who are knowledgeable on this kind of travel and can provide quick assistance.
    • Highly recommended that field safety considerations/processes are clearly thought out and incorporated into a centralized travel structure.
  • Communication, transparency, and flexibility are crucial in implementation and if a proposal goes through.
    • Make a website that lists the problems and what the Travel center is doing to mitigate each issue. If this is a personnel training issue.
    • Unit admin support should have access to the reporting feature to determine who is traveling and how much will be spent.
    • Implementation needs to be clearly defined and user/customer focused.

Proposal Development Feedback

  • Leave OPD in the GI
    • If removed it could be detrimental to the faculty researchers who depend on it and depend on the service that the proposal coordinators provide.
    • It takes time and effort for a PI and proposal coordinator to develop a sustainable working relationship. Centralizing this role would make 51风流官网 less competitive with grant writing and fundraising.
    • Concerned if the proposed management structure change leads to a reduction of number of proposal coordinators on West Ridge.
    • If "OPD has been pushed beyond capacity"  how can their efficiency and cost effectiveness be gauged?
  • 鈥淧refer the opt-in option.
  • Like the idea of creating a West Ridge and Lower campus proposal office with each office taking on their share of department pods.
    • Pods should be the responsibility of each office, rather than breaking them down by groups of individual coordinators within each office.
    • Each pod would require 2-3 coordinators worth of staff to cover the proposal load, the large pods would require at least 4-5 coordinators.

Purchasing Feedback

  • Support for the opt-in/opt-out options.
    • Is it possible to opt in only for Banner Procurement needs? (Reqs/POs/Call#s/etc)?
    • Can central administration cannot keep up with the demand of Researchers need?.  
    • Good idea for equipment purchases but ProCards and small purchases should remain at the department level.
    • Support the opt-in option and the ability to use a central office for large scale processing.
  • Support of higher purchasing limit with approval from unit directors prior to purchase.
    • Eliminates the need for additional time and paperwork for the purchasing center.
  • Concern what this would do to research.
    • Research needs would be significantly impacted if ProCards are centralized.
    • PI's should be given a purchasing card with a cap of $5k per unit purchase that requires some basic approval prior to making a purchase. This could be centralized and will be good.
  • Relationship between individuals and offices is highly important when purchasing.
  • Actual cost savings?
    • Cost savings could also come from bulk purchasing copy/printer machines with a maintenance contract.
    • How much money a shared purchasing service will save
    • It is difficult to provide informative feedback on the proposed centralized Purchasing Office without data on staffing goals and overall costs.
  • Who is responsible for what?
    • Who's responsible for JV's if keying errors are made during reconciling?
    • Who would have final approvals?
  • Provide more training.
    • To department fiscal officers to increase their purchasing authority.

Other Supported Feedback

  • Support opt-in/opt-out options.
  • Discourage the removal of HR from the units.
    • Concerns with current HR set-up at UA.
    • Opt-in for smaller units without HR support though.
  • Support revisiting the JV process.
    • The 60 day memo should either be eliminated or completely revised.
  • Increasing  Pro-Card limit is supported.
  • Implement of Paperless Job Processing (PJP) is supported.
  • Shared Services Advisory Board (SSAB)
    • SSAB should include significant representation from faculty, the customers.
    • SSAB does not seem like a good idea (increased workload on people).
  • Other questions:
    • How will staff reductions be managed in these partnerships?  
    • Will Deans and Directors manage "by committee" or rely on an "advisory group" to determine which staff are non-retain or if services are being provided equitably among the faculty in different colleges or institutes?
    • Where will the funding come from?
    • How would quality customer service be guaranteed?
    • Like to know more about the recharge model, is it a percentage or based on usage?

Implementation Feedback

  • Appreciate the time people put into the proposals.
  • Continue to communicate, be transparent.
    • Ensure that as the transition is being completed, a website is opened and dedicated to allow comments to be made. 
    • This process must be clearly defined prior to any movement in this direction.
    • This should be tested and if services degrade then there should be opportunity to change course.
    • Each of these departments have subject matter experts already in place at the department/administration level that should be consulted in the best way to implement a shared service.
  • Actual cost savings?
    • Where is the data to support any of this?
  • December 2020 seems unrealistic.
    • What are the timelines for shifting employees?
  • The proposed changes to OPD and research support departments could harm the university鈥檚 research activities, which go against the goal of becoming a Tier 1 research institution.
  • The memo was not clear on which services could be opted out of and what the fee structure for those services would be.