The HopkinsOne Faculty Advisory Committee meeting was called to order by Dr. Don Steinwachs at 3:05 pm. Dr. Steinwachs welcomed the Committee members and meeting guests, facilitated introductions and referenced the agenda, which included the following topics:

Discussion of Committee Charter

HopkinsOne Project Overview

Discussion of Next Steps

Discussion of Committee Charter

Dr. Steinwachs thanked the members for accepting to participate in this key Committee for HopkinsOne. Dr. Steinwachs emphasized the importance of ensuring that interests and needs of the Faculty are effectively considered as key activities of the Project are undertaken. In this role, the Faculty can be represented in reacting to system and process changes that affect them, but also play a proactive role in identifying Faculty needs in using the new system.

Dr. Steinwachs presented the primary role of the Committee, which is to provide Faculty input around decisions affecting Faculty at key junctures in the project. Accordingly, it is not the intention to impose on the Faculty Advisory Committee any responsibilities relating to evaluating or directing the entire project. The following items were discussed:

The Committee inquired as to the where in the HopkinsOne project lifecycle the team currently stood. The project is approximately half completed, and walked the Committee through a high-level Project Timeline that was included in the HopkinsOne Overview presentation.

The Committee asked the extent to which the Faculty has been involved in the HopkinsOne initiative thus far. Faculty have been involved in several ways; however, the involvement of Faculty must be increased throughout the remainder of the initiative. Representative Faculty have participated in the system package selection process; as survey participants on project success factors; through limited representation on the End User Group; and through HopkinsOne presentations provided to the Faculty Budget Advisory Committee. However, the HopkinsOne Faculty Advisory Committee is the first step in ongoing Faculty input throughout the Project lifecycle

HopkinsOne Project Overview

The Committtee was provided an overview of the HopkinsOne project, addressing such topics as Project Scope (for Functional Areas and Business Transformation), Project Timeline, and the Project Cost Model.

Project Scope- Functional

Key functions and sub-functions in the scope of HopkinsOne were provided, including: Sponsored Projects; Supply Chain; Human Resources/ Payroll; and Finance. The Committee also discussed the areas believed to have the greatest impact on the Faculty (such as pre- and post-award grant administration, purchasing, human resources and budgets). As HopkinsOne moves forward, the Project Team will be requesting Faculty involvement in key activities that impact the Faculty such as: supporting the definition of user roles in the new system environment that impact faculty; reviewing approval flows to ensure Faculty needs are met; testing key functions such as procurement that Faculty will use; and other key activities. During this discussion, Committee members pointed out the following:

With respect to functions noted that impact Faculty, such areas as accounts payable, payroll and accounts receivable should be added because they can have an adverse impact on Faculty when these processes are poorly administered. More and more responsibilities in departments and divisions are being transferred from Deans to the Departments/ Divisions. Therefore, it will be critical to evaluate resource levels in the departments and the impact HopkinsOne will have on resources. The Project's formal Guiding Principles are sensitive to the need for shifting resources where necessary to support the future process environment.

The Committee inquired as to whether compliance systems such as the IRB are included in the scope of HopkinsOne. This system is included in the scope of HopkinsOne; systems such as the IRB will be integrated with SAP via an interface.

Project Scope- Business Transformation

Key business transformation areas and activities within the project scope were highlighted. These areas include: training; communications; role definition and mapping; organizational change; and business process deployment. Several examples of areas where potential Faculty involvement will be necessary were presented and discussed by the Committee. During this discussion, Committee members pointed out the following:

Several training programs in the past have not been effectively catered to the unique needs of a particular department/ division (e.g., health system examples used for higher education training classes and vice versa). For HopkinsOne, training must be planned and delivered with specific needs in mind to be most effective from a Faculty perspective.

There is a negative perception among many Faculty that the content of newsletters such as Momentum are not geared toward the needs of Faculty. In addition, Momentum's glossy format suggests it is an expensive newsletter to develop which further impacts this negative perception. This format could also be perceived favorably among some Schools, and that the various Schools are likely to react differently to a glossy, professional looking publication. All agreed that the HopkinsOne team must work with the Faculty Advisory Committee to determine the best way to involve Faculty in the review of Momentum and its format. This will help the HopkinOne team be more sensitive to Faculty perception and needs.

Project Timeline

A high-level timeline for the HopkinsOne project was presented, including the main activities to be conducted in each future phase of the project. The Project is currently entering a phase called "Realization," where key activities such as the following will be conducted:

Developing and mapping new roles and responsibilities
Developing the Training Plan and supporting materials
Conducting sessions on process changes
Determining the impact of system and process changes on resources
Leading manager change training and preparation sessions
Building the system to reflect its design
Testing the system

Project Cost Model

Clearly, there have been a lot of questions by Faculty regarding the cost estimates of HopkinsOne. While the primary drivers for the initiative were Service, Compliance and Productivity, cost and economics were significant considerations as well. In fact, there was a great deal of analysis prior to HopkinsOne as to whether the entities should approach this initiative from an institution by institution perspective vs. in a unified fashion. As a result, there were several compelling reasons to approach the initiative in a comprehensive way across the enterprise, including the standardization of business processes.

The Committee was presented with the basic approach, specific assumptions and financing considerations upon which the cost model for HopkinsOne was developed, including each of the cost categories that comprise the Project's total estimated budget of $184 million. The categories include: Installation of Systems; Business Process Changes; and Project Management and Support.

The Committee asked if the 10-year system cost amortization included in the model assumed that the system would only be useful for 10-years. The system is expected to be used for several years beyond this estimate; this timeframe for amortization is driven primarily by accounting rules.

The Committee was provided with estimates of the alternative cost of new systems and processes if an alternative other than the HopkinsOne were pursued. These cost estimates include the replacement costs of Financial and Administrative systems for JHU, an upgrade of Administrative systems for JHHS and several additional hard costs such as training, process standardization, organization change costs, and operating costs associated with upgrades and replacements. In total, these estimates approach $170 million. A series of soft costs and hard costs that have been identified but are still being quantified (e.g., the ability to incorporate new legislation, ability to make additional upgrades to legacy systems in the future, etc.) were also highlighted. Therefore, it is important to note that the alternative costs of new systems and existing system maintenance is quite a significant number as well. During this discussion, Committee members pointed out the following:

These alternative costs are an important point to make as the business case for HopkinsOne is communicated. Johns Hopkins must realize that the impact of not pursuing HopkinsOne does not equate to $0. However, any alternative cost estimates communicated must be conservative.

The HopkinsOne team must more clearly communicate to the Faculty the fact that the alternatives include approaching systems replacement from an integrated perspective vs. a patchwork perspective. This fact would better resonate with Faculty. In addition, the benefit of changing business practices to best reflect the capabilities of the systems (as opposed to the inverse approach) must be communicated.

Discussion of Next Steps

The Committee discussed next steps for meeting and coordinating Faculty input into HopkinsOne. The Committee agreed to reconvene after the Blueprint design has been completed so that process changes impacting faculty could be shared with the Committee. The Committee also agreed to play a proactive role in describing some of the specific information the system must generate to meet faculty needs. Some of the Committee members indicated that it would be helpful to see how Departmental budgeting is being envisioned for the SAP environment.

Action Items

Item	Due Date
A copy of the survey Faculty participated in will be provided to the Committee.	Prior to next HOFAC Meeting
A brief "2-pager" will be prepared explaining project costing highlights and some lessons learned from the CUFs implementation that are being brought to bear for HopinsOne.	Prior to next HOFAC Meeting
The Project Team will provide the Committee with copies of the Project's Guiding Principles and a listing of HopkinsOne representatives on the Committee.	Prior to next HOFAC Meeting

© 2005 The Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, Maryland. All rights reserved.
Last updated 01Nov05 by dgips@jhu.edu