From: "Gross, Louis J" Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:41 PM To: "Lemon, Tammy" , "Pourmotabbed, Tayebeh" , "Donaldson, Martin E" , "Starling, Anderson Milton" , "Walker, Sean C" , "Patterson, David A" , "Garland, Tammy" , "Crawford, Beth K" , "Cathey, R Michael" , "Richey, Phyllis" , "Cathey, R Michael" , "Miller, David Leslie" , "Martin, Linda C (Linda C. Martin)" Cc: "Keene, Benjamin" , "Hartmann, Chynna" , "Roy, Jessica L." , "Kirk, Megan" , "Sisto Means, Natalie" , "joshua.d.sandstrom@accenture.com" , "Padilla Jr, Ramon" , "Gross, Louis J" Subject: Re: ACTION NEEDED: Review Post-Session Notes for Future State Process - UFC Tammy et al., This is my response to your request for comments on the post-session notes that you sent. That document essentially only contains the sticky notes that were posted during the session as best I can tell, with a few added comments. I don’t think it adequately summarizes many of the issues that we discussed. Here’s my summary of points to expand on the short sticky notes: 1. It is far from clear what the process was for deciding what is in scope for this new ERP. The document we received said that proposal management was included. Yet in our discussion it was stated that “likely Cayuse would not be replaced”. When and how will this decision be made? What input do we and others have about this? 2. There was concern that this was the 15th week of meetings on this, with only a 16 week contract, and we were the first faculty group that was asked to provide input. This was clearly not sufficient time for reflection and broad input. 3. There were extensive comments from faculty on different campuses about the inadequacies of the current system for grants financial management. Though the team said they talked with research management people about these issues, this is not the same as talking with the PIs who have to deal with the various challenges of the current system. We were told that any modern system would be much better and that essentially we shouldn’t be too concerned – this seems a faulty approach and a preferable one would be to sit down with a representative group of PIs from around the System and get their detailed input on what a grants management financial system really needs to include. 4. It is still not clear what of the current systems will be replaced – for example it was stated that Taleo may or may not be replaced. Similarly the plan includes having performance reviews in the new ERP but then it was stated that faculty evaluations would not be included. There needs to be clarity about these matters with input from users to guide decisions. 5. A long discussion regarding interoperability led to the comment that “this is decided later and depends upon what product is chosen”. I suggested that this is exactly the wrong way to consider interoperability with systems such as Cayuse, Banner, etc. there are clear issues up front on interop that should be clarified before any product is chosen. 6. We encouraged faculty involvement throughout all aspects of the planning process. Stay well, Lou -- Louis J. Gross (he, him, his) Chancellor’s Professor and Alvin and Sally Beaman Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Mathematics Director Emeritus, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS.org) Director, The Institute for Environmental Modeling University of Tennessee - Knoxville President, 2006-2007, 2021-2022, UTK Faculty Senate Past-President, 2003-2005, Society for Mathematical Biology http://lgross.utk.edu/