����Ӱ��

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 “Concur is a nightmare,” “Concur is horrible,” “…is painful to use,” “does not work for students and non-employees,” “Please get rid of Concur,” and “Concur…has cost me countless hours in lost productivity.”
• 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 ����Ӱ�� 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?
• “Prefer 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’s 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.