University Space Utilization System Business Case

I. Recommendations for the Steering Committee

The University Space Utilization System (USUS) Team [see Appendix C for the USUS Team Charge], with the endorsement of the Student Enrollment Services Process Owners Group (SESPOG), recommends that the Integrated Systems/Process Simplification Steering Committee:

 Supports the purchase of Resource 25, with an unlimited seat license (R25), for implementation by the University Registrar (UREG), Newcomb Hall, and the schools, other offices and departments as deemed appropriate. R25 will be used to schedule spaces for both academic and extracurricular activities.  Supports the commitment of the required Information Technology and Communication’s (ITC) resources beginning in August 2004, to support the University’s implementation of R25.  Supports the commitment of permanent addenda funds for one full-time (FTE) system administrator/programmer in UREG effective July 1, 2004.  Approves the establishment of a process simplification team to study current practices with regard to activity reservations and pursue opportunities to consolidate responsibilities and/or streamline the process. In addition, the team will update existing space reservation policies.

II. Case for the University Registrar

Upgrade to Resource 25 for UREG

The University Registrar (UREG) currently uses Schedule 25 and 25E for the initial allocation of academic space and the management of 180 classroom spaces in the schools of Architecture, Arts and Sciences, Commerce, Education, Engineering, and Nursing. Schedule 25 (S25) is an industry-leading academic scheduling program, which employs a sophisticated algorithm for the automated assignment of thousands of academic courses into appropriate classrooms. Once S25 allocates academic space for courses, this information is uploaded into 25E, which is then used throughout a semester to manage academic spaces, move classes as necessary, and reserve spaces for ad hoc academic events and extracurricular activities. 25E is managed by UREG and used by staff in the schools of Architecture, Commerce, Education, Engineering, and Nursing. It offers back- end functionalities; that is, administrators use it to reserve classrooms, manage space data, and run reports, but it cannot provide calendars showing the availability of the spaces.

CollegeNET, which has developed these products, will no longer be supporting 25E. Instead, 25E has evolved into R25, which provides a Web viewer to search for spaces, IS/PS Steering Committee calendars for viewing availability, filters for viewing varying types of events around Grounds (e.g., athletic, performance, academic), and electronic forms for requesting spaces.

UREG needs to upgrade to R25 to be able to maintain state-of-the-art performance, functionality, and the support required for scheduling academic spaces. Without the funding and ITC resources necessary to upgrade to R25, UREG will have to continue using the unsupported S25 and 25E software. A delay in upgrading to R25 will become problematic if either product fails.

III. Case for Newcomb Hall

Newcomb Hall upgrade to Resource 25; change for the future

Newcomb Hall is committed to implementing R25. Newcomb currently uses Events Management System (EMS), a reservations system developed by Dean Evans Associates, which is an industry leader in events reservations and management. EMS is used predominately by student unions. EMS lacks an equivalent to the S25 algorithm and therefore cannot provide automated academic scheduling, making R25 the solution to effectively support both academic class scheduling and extracurricular activities scheduling.

Newcomb Hall, which manages approximately two dozen spaces with EMS, grants full administrative access to five staff. However, EMS cannot match the accessibility features of R25, which for a given academic space can be configured to protect the priority of academic scheduling by limiting access to UREG until a given date, then allowing broader access to other staff who may schedule non-academic events. R25 can also be configured to limit access to certain staff for reservations during classrooms hours each weekday and broaden access for evening and weekend reservations.

Prior to the work of USUS, Newcomb had intended to upgrade to EMS Enterprise, which provides a Web viewer through which students, faculty, and staff may view events and request reservations. However, it is now Newcomb’s intent to implement R25 along with UREG, thereby enabling the University community to access more spaces through a single Web interface and maintain a single system to manage UREG and Newcomb space reservations.

IV. Case for the University

A team to study the reservations process

The collaborative efforts to build cases for change regarding UREG and Newcomb provide a larger opportunity for process simplification. USUS accomplished preliminary process work but strongly recommends the establishment of a process simplification team to study current practices with regard to activity reservations and pursue opportunities to

2 IS/PS Steering Committee consolidate responsibilities and/or streamline the process. In addition, the team will update existing space reservation policies.

Currently, the processes for activities reservations in the 180 academic spaces under UREG’s control are decentralized. UREG handles activities reservations for spaces in the College, but the schools of Architecture, Commerce, Education, Engineering, and Nursing each handle activities reservations in their own spaces. If a student organization wishes to hold a meeting in Thornton Hall, it must contact Engineering. If Thornton Hall is unavailable, the organization may contact Education about a space in Ruffner Hall, or Commerce for a space in Monroe Hall, or UREG for a space in New Cabell Hall, etc. Preliminary work shows that centralizing the scheduling of activities reservations for spaces in all of the schools would provide the following benefits [see Appendix B for the current list of University administrators reserving spaces]:

 single point of contact; a simplified process to request space;  improved potential to maximize the use of University spaces while providing quality program advising, and finally;  strategic concentration of events into a core group of buildings, which would maximize the efforts of the University’s security and housekeeping staff.

If the University decides to maintain the current reservations process, USUS believes that the community will benefit from accessing more spaces through the single R25 interface. It should be noted that R25’s security features will accommodate any degree of centralization or decentralization.

By adding more spaces into R25, the University would also be able to create comprehensive reports on the use of buildings on Grounds; benefiting security, daily maintenance, cleaning, parking and transportation management, special event and capital planning.

V. Best Practices

A team to study the reservations process, facilitating implementation

Benchmarking has provided highly divergent examples, from the University of Richmond, which has centralized virtually all activities reservations through a single office, to Emory University, which has more than 100 space administrators. The following are a few of the institutions that will provide models and best practices for the implementation of R25: Stanford, Princeton, Miami of Ohio, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Emory University, Kansas State University, Maine, University of Vermont, the College of William & Mary, James Madison University, and University of Richmond.

VI. Key Implementation Factors

Interfacing with ISIS and/or a New Student System

3 IS/PS Steering Committee

25E currently interfaces with ISIS, providing data sharing that enables ISIS, as the system of record, to provide up-to-date information. This interface was custom built by ITC at considerable time and expense, and any consideration of a new reservations system must weigh the time and expense of creating a new interface. Technical staff from CollegeNET have asserted that the system architecture of R25 is very similar to that of 25E, and in their opinion, the University should be able to adapt its current interface to connect R25 with ISIS. ITC staff have so far seen no reason to doubt its adaptability, but until they can actually look at R25, they cannot confirm this assertion.

R25, as an industry leader, has interfaces with all of the major student systems, including Oracle, SCT Banner, and Peoplesoft.

Information Technology and Communication’s resources

Current high-priority ISIS projects, such as the switch from Federal Direct loans to FFELP loans, preclude any work on the interface until at least August 2004. Information Technology and Communication’s resources are essential to the success of the implementation. The project is not a candidate for outsourcing due to the knowledge base required regarding ISIS.

UREG FTE

The R25 project will require significant time and an effort similar to that expended on DARS for UREG. R25 can be viewed as a warm-up for the new student system. The student system implementation will require staffing of system administrator/programmer- type positions. The R25 project approval would expedite the need for one new position. The R25 project provides an opportunity to build consensus across the University which will facilitate the implementation of a new student system.

Sole-Source Procurement

Although USUS initially considered two potential products to provide these services, it became apparent that only one product, R25, offers the full range of necessary features. In addition, the team considered Corporate Time and the Oracle Training Administration (OTA) scheduling systems but they are designed to serve very different purposes and lack many of R25’s key functionalities. Neither system provides for the automated assignment of academic courses in appropriate classrooms. However, the team believes that both products would continue to serve important functions at the University even if R25 is implemented broadly.

USUS confirmed with Procurement Services that no other Virginia public colleges or universities have contracts in place through which the University could purchase R25. A sole source procurement will be negotiated by Procurement Services if USUS is given the authority to pursue the purchase of R25. Procurement Services has reviewed preliminary information provided by USUS to confirm that this is the appropriate way to handle this procurement.

4 IS/PS Steering Committee

VII. Building the Case for the University Investment

Refer to Appendix A for the case to purchase an unlimited seat license

Recommendation

Implement R25 broadly, purchasing an unlimited seat license. This implementation would include UREG, associated schools, Newcomb Hall, and other key space administrators as deemed appropriate, such as Intramural-Recreational Sports, the Rotunda, and Old Cabell Hall.

Costs of Recommendation

An unlimited seat license is equal in cost to licensing for 37 seats. Implementing R25 in UREG and in the schools of Architecture, Arts and Sciences, Commerce, Education, Engineering, and Nursing, requires approximately 22 seat licenses. Adding Newcomb Hall, requires approximately 30 seat licenses. If we don’t choose the unlimited license, there will be a $5,000 upgrade fee assessed each time seats are added. However, for just $4,500 [difference between $32,500 and $37,000] the University can move from 30 to 37 seats and have the flexibility to add seats as needed in the future at no cost.

The unlimited seat license is recommended so that the University has flexibility for as broad of an implementation as possible. Refer to the far right column of Appendix A under “University” for one-time and ongoing costs.

Proposed Time line for Approval of University’s Investments

Commitment to fund UREG FTE by June 14, 2004 [effective July 1, 2004] Commitment to purchase Resource 25 by June 14, 2004 Commitment of ITC resources to begin work by August 2004 Commitment to establish Process Simplification team, November 20, 2003