Admin 12.16.16 Minutes


Jackie Finch, Gloria Keeley, Eric McMinoway, Kavin Chan, Kasey Wilken, Linda Naru, Dimuthu Tilakaratne, Cynthia Cobb, Tony Kerber, John Fudacz, Vanessa Peoples, Heather O’Leary

  • My-UI-Financials Phase 2 Project
    • Presentation
      • A presentation was given highlighting upcoming enhancements, a timeline of phase two, and major features
      • Discussion of possible features that could be added
      • Further discussion on how to create reports on specific data
  • ITPC
    • Updates
      • Current project highlights of the ITPC report were gone over
      • Current and upcoming mandatory projects were outlined
      • Mentioned that the biennial inventory is underway
      • Tests on mobile tools should take place in January
      • Noted that the UPB phone implementation had gone through and feedback from members was requested
      • Suggested that some people found the menu confusing
      • User stories for Capital Projects have been being created
      • Concern was voiced about sub-contractors not being able to access the system
  • Faculty Profiling Tool
    • Tools and Concerns
      • Noted that an announcement looking at options for a faculty profiling tool had gone out
      • Concern about who is making decisions, how it may overlap with other tools in different colleges, and whether it had been vetted was voiced
      • Suggested that other committees have been involved and had seen presentations on various tools
    • Recommendations
      • Suggested that there should be a better way for committees to communicate with each other
      • Noted that within SPH, the various ITGC reps do not necessarily communicate between themselves
      • The report of recommendations will be ready by the end of December



Admin 10.25.16 Minutes


Gloria Keeley, Dimuthu Tilakaratne, Joe Patzin, Mint Simagrai, Tony Kerber, Mike Kamowski, Amber Munds, Fernando Howell, Sean Reeder, John Fudacz, Jackie Finch, Jon Santanni, Todd Van Neck, Therese Molina, Jacqueline Berger, Jennifer Rowan, Kathleen Engstrom, Dick Harris

  • Capital Projects Systems
    • Capital Programs
      • The process that went into creating the system was outlined, including an RFI
      • Business process workflows have been being revised and are currently being integrated into the new system
      • The goals for this process were stated
      • Noted that there have been challenges due to Illinois’ procurement structure
      • When questioned how the new system can benefit project clients, a plan on how to share information with users was explained
      • Some features of the new dashboard were outlined
      • Suggested that E-Builder has experience in setting up different dashboards, workflows, and reporting
      • Suggested that a demo could be given to show committee dashboards and receive feedback
      • Noted that this new system is a phased deployment
      • Discussion on how this will improve users’ ability to track and search for projects
      • Discussion on existing process and improvements in the new system
      • Concern voiced about making sure end users’ needs are considered
      • Suggested and discussed that end users want to be involved in projects and decisions made by project managers
  • University Business Process Evaluation Proposal
    • ERP Systems
      • Suggestion that this proposal was started to prepare for the inevitable move to the cloud
      • Benchmarking was questioned and it was suggested to look at other institutions to see what is being done
      • Mentioned that, within the latest evaluation of UA, some performance measures should be considered
      • Suggested that the committee should look into Source To Pay
      • The process of receiving input was described
      • Discussion of concerns about access to data and when/where decisions are made
      • Committee asked to review document
    • AITS Response to Business System Strategy Recommendations
      • Noted that AITS has responded to committee’s recommendations
      • Suggested that this document shows buy in for ideas the committee has been discussing
      • Concern expressed about having an institutionalized process for engagement
      • Discussion on committee concerns on providing input
      • More communication between the committee and others to relay feedback
      • Discussion on how the committee can continue to express need for feedback and how best to gather input
      • Discussion of individual experiences with projects and serious issues that have arisen from lack of information
  • AITS Review
    • Administrative IT Systems
      • Suggested that the president asked the committee to review administrative IT Systems
      • Group has a deadline of end of October to create a report
      • The catalog of services offered by AITS was looked at
      • Suggested that this is an opportunity to reiterate the committee’s recommendations in a different forum
      • Discussion of changes in the past that have moved resources
      • Noted that there is an initial draft report that will be shared with the committee

Admin 09.27.16 Minutes


Vanessa Peoples, Cynthia Herrera Lindstrom, Todd Van Neck, Linda Naru, John Fudacz, Joe Patzin, Monica Tith, Tony Kerber, Kelly Block, Gloria Keeley, Dick Harris, Heather O’Leary, Dale Rush, Mint Simagrai, Therese Molina

  • ITPC Update
    • Update Report
      • ITPC update report was gone over
      • Reminded that P-cards and T-cards were re-issued due to bank change
      • Next stage of My-UI-Financials set to kick off in October
      • Noted that preferred name implementation has begun
      • Discussion of new CSM for benefit choice – currently in blackout period
      • Current and upcoming projects were outlined
      • Noted that one ID, one password project is going live at UIC in October
      • Discussion of START MyResearch project
      • Further discussion of grant needs and integration of various tools
      • Concern expressed about the latest iteration of Kuali
      • List of high-priority services for the committee were mentioned
    • Social Collaboration Tools
      • The committee was spoken to about a project to consider social collaboration tools
      • A list of functional requirements and products being considered were presented
      • A demo of Yammer was given, along with pros and cons of the product
      • Discussion of Yammer
      • Questioned how admins can be involved in collecting input and sharing information, which one of the Yammer tools would benefit
  • New Business
    • Strategic Framework
      • The committee was questioned on how they can use the president’s strategic framework in setting priorities for the year
      • Discussion of the framework
      • Suggested that the framework is a guide as to the university’s purpose
      • Suggested to focus on what the outcomes of this framework will be
      • Further discussion on how to proceed
    • President’s Task Force on Admin IT Systems
      • Suggested that the president has assembled a task force with representatives from all three campuses to review Administrative IT systems
      • Goal of issuing a report by end of October
      • The committee was asked to provide additional input
      • Further discussion of how to be involved and what resources exist
    • Capital Project Management System
      • Noted that there are four different systems currently under the process
      • Working to develop workflows for new system
      • Concern voiced about building tools around processes and access to information through the tool
      • The committee was asked how they could influence this project
      • Discussion of steps the committee could take to better integrate feedback
      • Concern voiced on specific aspects of the system as it stands
      • Suggested that the point of contact should be the capital programs office
      • Noted that the capital programs people are willing to attend a future meeting
      • Suggested inserting the committee into the process nearer to the beginning
  • Old Business
    • Future Items
      • Suggested that a lot of attention has been placed on tools and systems
      • Requested that policies also be considered

Admin 08.30.16 Minutes


Cynthia Herrera-Lindstrom, Kelly Block (on the phone), Tony Kerber (on the phone), Gloria Keeley, Loretta Casey (on the phone), Jaclyn Finch (on the phone), Vanessa Peoples, Dick Harris (on the phone), Joseph Patzin, Monica Tith, Mike Kamowski (on the phone)

  • ITPC Update
    •  Update
      • Noted that a meeting was held last week and nine projects were gone over
      • Details on each project were gone over
      • Discussion on staff members with self-supporting funds
      • Discussion on new systems being introduced within the next few years
      • Committee was asked which projects to prioritize from the ITPC report
      • Discussion of ITPC report process and prioritizing of projects
  • Old Business
    • Scheduling
      • The scheduling issue for future meetings was mentioned
      • Suggested to follow up on the Doodle poll to better accommodate each member

Admin 07.27.16 Minutes


Gloria Keeley, Mike Kamowski, Mint Simagrai, Linda Naru, Monica Tith, John Fudacz, Eric McMinoway, Mary Berta, Jackie Finch, Todd Van Neck, Kelly Block, Dimuthu Tilakaratne, Loretta Casey, Dick Harris, Cynthia Herrera Lindstrom, Heather O’Leary, Joe Patzin, Vanessa Peoples, Sherri Presson, Denise Swenson, Mary Combs

  • ITPC Update
    • General Updates
      • Page five of ITPC document was presented and project updates were gone over
      • System used to change benefits is being changed from Nessie to a new vendor provided by the state
      • Further updates on changes affecting student systems were given
      • Concern voiced about issues with Kuali Coeus
    • Finance
      • Page one of ITPC document was gone over
      • Discussion of access and roles in My-UI-Financials and different applications available within the system
      • Visits to departments to present the system were offered
    • AVSL
      • Presentation was given on currently available AVSL system
      • Noted that rhe current ITPC project is on hold
      • Overview of current AVSL system and new system was given
      • Discussion on features currently available and what changes may come in AVSL
      • Further discussion on concerns with compliance and enforcing time submission
      • Presentation given on new system requirements, functionality, etc.
      • Discussion on other time reporting systems and related concerns
  • Procure to Pay
    • Payment Processes
      • Presentation given on Procure to Pay, noting the twenty-nine different systems supporting pay processes within the university
      • The RFP will go out in about eighteen months
      • Template PPMO0065 available for review
      • Project process gone over, noting a change in management group
      • Campus engagement in the process encouraged
      • Discussion of involvement and next steps
  • ITGC Review
    • Survey Results
      • Preliminary results from ITGC assessment survey were presented
      • A final survey report will be sent out in August
      • Focus group will take place in the fall

Admin 05.26.16 Minutes


Mary Berta, Mint Simagrai, John Fudacz, Kathleen Engstrom, Jaclyn Finch, Eric McMinoway, Todd Van Neck, Gloria Keeley, Janet Shaw, Cynthia Cobb, Heather O’Leary

  • ITPC Update
    • What was included on the TIPC update for the next fiscal year was listed
    • Mentioned that the ITPC process review will be brought to the committee later in the summer and the document will be placed in the committee’s Box folder
  • Identity and Access Management
    • Presentation
      • IAM was discussed
      • Program is set to come out in October
      • Changes associated with the new program were listed
      • Discussion on Net IDs
      • Discussion on password management, the common password, and the technicality of “single” sign-on
      • Discussion on potential problems with the project at later stages of implementation
      • Discussion on the use of personal devices for university systems password security
      • Discussion on email and the process of creating a university account
    • ITGC Governance Review
      • Discussion on what the group has accomplished in terms of governance
      • Input requested on what else the group could be doing
      • Suggested that meeting times/days be changed for better accommodation
      • Doodle poll suggested for member input on meeting times

Admin 04.27.16 Minutes


Jackie Finch, Linda Naru, Kevin Shalla, Mike Kirda, Joe Patzin, Frank Cervone, Andre Pavkovic, Dean Dang, Marcin Hiolski, Kathleen Engstrom, Phil Reiter, Mike Kamowski, Monica Tith, Ron Fernandez, Loretta Casey, Mark Goedert, Mint Simagrai, Chris Berndt, Lisa Blake, Mary Berta, Chris Barton, Bala Ramaraju, Kelly Block, Gloria Keeley, Anthony Marino, John Fudacz, Vanessa Peoples, Todd Van Neck, Heather O’Leary

  • Rate and Funding
    • Presentation
      • Presentation given on new IT Rate and Funding model
      • What the basic bundle will include was gone over
      • Discussion on how FTE count works, what is included in bundle, and how billing will work
      • Some self-supporting services that will incur costs outside the basic bundle were gone over
    • Discussion
      • Discussion on billing change
      • Costs for services outside of the bundle were questioned
      • Suggested that all costs will be included in units’ information packets
      • Suggested that adjusted rates will eventually go on ACCC website
      • Suggested that there will be SLAs for services outside of the bundle
      • Discussion on costs and rates for hospital and other campuses
      • How the numbers were determined was questioned
      • Discussion on list of FTEs
      • Discussion on annual review process
      • The ITGC will help prioritize services based on cost and need
      • Discussion on potential ways to cut costs
  • ITGC Evaluation
      • Noted that a faculty member has been engaged to evaluate the ITGC and determine how to improve
      • There will be a survey, focus groups, etc.
      • Noted that the ITPC is also going through a review process
  • Business Review Template
      • Template is complete, will be in use at the next meeting
  • ITPC Updates
      • The report for current Chicago projects was shared

Admin 02.25.16 Minutes


Gloria Keeley, Monica Tith, Youngwook Song, Mary Berta, Linda Naru, Kelly Block, Vanessa Peoples, Todd Van Neck, Jackie Finch, Cynthia Herrera Lindstrom, Mint Simagrai, Eric McMinoway, Heather O’Leary


  • START myResearch
    • Presentation
      • Presentation on the history and current status of the START myResearch project
      • Discussion of the RNUA process and difficulties faced by end users
      • Further discussion of the IRB process and timeline
    • Demo
      • A demo of the portal was performed
      • Discussion on how access is granted
    • ITPC
      • Projects discussed at last meeting have been approved by the ITPC
      • Brief overview of approved projects was given
    • Business Process Review Template
      • The template has been worked on and is awaiting feedback, especially on making the form a fillable PDF
      • Discussion of specific sections
      • Discussion on how to define a “seamless process”
      • A final revision will be done and shared with the committee next month
    • Projects to Focus on
      • Suggested to revisit the status on some of the projects that were decided to be focused on a following up
      • Contacting various project managers to initiate contact with the committee was suggested
      • Project sponsors are being asked to attend a meeting to discuss in detail

Admin 12.04.15 Minutes



Dale Rush, Mary Berta, Joe Patzin, Jackie Finch, Kelly Block, Linda Naru, Tony Kerber, Dimuthu Tilakaratne, Dick Harris, Therese Molina, Cynthia Herrera Lindstrom, Loretta Casey, Mint Simagrai, Vanessa Peoples, Todd Van Neck, Heather O’Leary

  • ITPC Updates
    • ITPC projects were reviewed, including preferred names, Banner upgrades, and redoing the president’s website
  • Business Process Working Groups
    • Introduction
      • Working groups had been meeting since August meeting
      • The ITPC took the committee’s recommendations under consideration and chairs were asked to share their updates with the committee
    • Employee Training Infrastructure
      • An RFP is being worked on
      • Discussion of when the committee should get involved
      • It was suggested that the committee/a subcommittee could act as reviewer of RFPs with further discussion of how that could work
      • Discussion of tailoring the template to be used at different point during a project and on issues related to the RFP process in general
    • Capital Programs
      • Noted that this group had already started working with a vendor
      • Discussion of becoming involved with implementation, configuration, etc.
      • The project lead was reached out to, which was helpful, but there were also concerns about delaying the process during the review process
    • Biennial Inventory
      • Stated that the project is still in proposal stage and unable to answer many template questions which led to discussion of modifying template to include different phases
      • Suggested that this group get in contact with the project lead
      • There were a number of suggestions on improving the template and it was suggested that the template be posted to Box for members to add their edits
    • IAM
      • Stated that this project will be active as of Fall 2016, however the user requirements from UIC will be present in the Spring
    • AVSL
      • Stated that this group is at the point where they just need to fill out the template and will have report by January
    • ICS
      • Stated that a group had already been put together to look at colleges and get feedback
    • Touchpoint Template
      • Questioned if the template could be edited and if updates could be given at each phase which led to the suggestion that everyone should meet with their project lead who could provide updates on dates and phases
      • The touchpoint form and project phases were gone over and there was discussion on how the committee should be involved in such touchpoints
      • It was suggested that each group see where their project is at in the timeline to decide whether or not scaling back efforts on certain projects would be worthwhile to completing others
      • The group decided to scale back on ICS and TEM and put more efforts into training, biennial inventory, capital projects, and, maybe, AVSL

Admin 01.29.16 Minutes


Loretta Casey, Cynthia Cobb, Kelly Block, Jackie Finch, Mary Berta, Linda Naru, Eric McMinoway, Dick Harris, Gloria Keeley, Dimuthu Tilakaratne, Todd Van Neck, John Fudacz, Vanessa Peoples Heather O’Leary


  • ITPC Update and Review
    • Current Project Updates
      • Both upcoming projects and projects that are already under way were shared
      • Proactive feedback was requested
      • Discussion on projects
      • Suggested that ITPC updates regularly go to all committees
    • ITPC Review
      • Noted that the ITPC is presenting to each governance group and requesting feedback
      • The feedback gained from last year was involved in the ITPC review
      • Discussion on project details and feedback process
      • Discussion on mutual beneficial relationship between ITPC and ITGC
      • Discussion on systems and how to improve
    • Business System Review Template
      • Review and discussion of suggested changes in the committee
      • The template will be updated and sent back to the committee