HEUG 2002

1

• HEUG 2002
• LAS VEGAS
• March 4-7, 2002

2
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 were
  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 FA through Grants was the way to go

3
Who else?

• Andersen consulting has worked with several of
  the schools
• Deloitte Consulting
• Frank Mollo hes located in New Jersey. He
  helped Western Michigan implement. Nice guy
  was willing to answer questions

4
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

5
More Good News

• PS 8.4 is committed to supporting best
  practices as outlined by the Hackett Group
• Best Practice EfficiencyEffectiveness World
  Class Performance

6
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 arent too many
  schools live on Grants. Most that I talked to
  are planning 8.4 in July 2003

7
PS Grants 8.4

• Presented by Barry Hickson
• Barry.Hickson_at_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

8
PS Grants 8.4

• Forms
• PHS 298
• PHS 2590
• SF272
• SF269
• SF270
• SF1034/1035
• Generic Invoice

9
PS Grants 8.4

• FA, IDC, Overhead (pick a name)
• Multiple offsets
• Three Computations
• SFA
• WFA (waived FA)
• CFA (cost share FA)
• 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)

10
PS Grants 8.4

• FA (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

11
PS Grants 8.4

• Contracts Module now required to run Grants
  Module
• Executive Team will investigate
• Comes to EG due to Commercial/EG merge
• Good news Dont know. We havent seen module to
  know what it does
• Bad news We have to learn and set-up another
  module

12
PS Grants 8.4

• Creating a proposal will bring in certifications
  from the institution level theres 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

13
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

14
PS Grants 8.4

• Versions allow history of how proposal evolved
• Institution-Funded and Sponsor-Funded refer to
  waived FA 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

15
FA U Wisconsin

• FA 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

16
FA U Wisconsin

• U Wisconsin (continued)
• Good or bad? You decide.
• Trees must be updated to include new projects
• They run FA monthly FA through Grants can be
  run as often as every day
• Manual calculations needed if FA rate is
  anything other than one of the standard rates

17
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)

18
Grants with U Kansas

• KU has approx 580 sponsors
• They distribute FA 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)

19
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 couldnt 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

20
Grants with U Kansas

• FA Revenue Distribution
• GM FA process based on Dept ID they were
  originally using Class chartfield for FA
  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

21
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

22
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

23
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 PIs 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

24
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 dont
  have a lot of paper bills and they dont like the
  generic invoice

25
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 FA in Grants is much easier
  than allocations
• They run FA weekly, sometimes multiple times at
  month end as transactions get corrected

26
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 wont print forms unless
  the proposal is in submitted status leave as
  unsubmitted until awarded, make changes, then
  submit and move to award side

27
Grants with UTHSCSA

• First things firstwhat 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

28
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

29
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 didnt have enough
• Added some reports (routing sheet and proposal
  summary)
• Hid panels

30
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 FA
• FA through Grants, A/R and Billing (Sept 2002)
  with other PS Financials

31
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 didnt overwhelm the users
• Hid panels to avoid confusion may unhide them
  later as users become comfortable with system

32
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

33
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

34
Clemson Sponsored Programs

• Clemson doesnt use Projects or Grants Modules
• Created web interfaces to load data so they
  didnt have to load client on desktops
• They use G/L allocations for FA 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

35
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

36
Clemson Sponsored Programs

• They created many special reports to run
• PI report
• FA 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)