People Soft

In May 1999, former IU President Myles Brand announced the University would completely overhaul its computer information systems and purchase software licensing from technology giant PeopleSoft. The massive implementation process, scheduled to last six years, began in the spring of 2000, and in the midst of the overhaul, IU administrators, academic advisers, faculty and staff are coping with or preparing for enormous change within the school's computing system.\nUniversity officials at the project's forefront said their goal is to make the transition from the old system to the new as seamless for students as possible.\nBut the projected final cost, estimated at more than $40 million over six years, might not go unnoticed by students. And beyond that, concern and optimism surround the software.\nBut whether an avid proponent or dire critic, those learning about the new software offer the same sentiment -- they just have to deal with it.\nWhat is PeopleSoft? Why is it needed?\nIn 1999, IU purchased two systems from PeopleSoft. The first, the Human Resource Management System, deals with university financial and employee information. The other, the Student Information System, will manage data for more than 95,000 students on eight campuses and will control such operations as scheduling, admissions, enrollment and advising.\nWhen Brand made the decision to switch to PeopleSoft almost three years ago, IU was operating on systems designed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Don Hossler, co-chairman of the SIS Steering Committee and vice chancellor for enrollment services at IU. He said the current system has been updated over the years to fit the University's needs, but the dated software left no option other than wide-scale change.\n"Some people talk like we have choices," Hossler said. "When I wrote my first book in 1982, I wrote it on an Apple Two writer computer. No one at this University would be satisfied if they were doing their processing and database work on an Apple II."\nSeven Big Ten schools have switched to PeopleSoft, and the University of Minnesota is currently upgrading from an earlier version to PeopleSoft 8, the same version IU is installing.\nWhen the decision was made to replace the old system, several options, including building a new "in-house" system, were presented to IU officials. Norma Holland, associate vice president of University Information Systems, said IU could implement PeopleSoft faster than it could build a new system. \nHossler said most institutions are choosing to purchase commercial software rather than build their own systems. But he said a university designing an "in house" system could more easily rationalize cutting and trimming programs for financial reasons because the school would not be committed to a major corporation. No perfect solution exists for such a large project, he said.\n"There are no panaceas in any steps that you take," Hossler said. "If you buy off the shelf, it doesn't always do exactly what you want it to do, but if you do it yourself, you have to completely customize it."\nPolicy concerns\nMary Kay Rothert, undergraduate academic adviser for the English department, deals with about 500 students. Her day is filled with student appointments, meetings and paperwork. But recently her days have had an added element -- PeopleSoft.\nRothert now spends time simultaneously working with the old system and learning the new software. She said replacing IU's old system is not the big issue, but how the new system affects her work and her students is.\n"Training is something that we all go through in life, so that is not a great concern," Rothert said. "We're all going to be struggling with the new software, but the question will be: What will we be losing?"\nRothert said she is worried that lack of knowledge about the new system and time spent learning how to use it will prevent her and perhaps others from providing students with the best service.\n"I think the advisers know that in the future they will be working 50 or 60 hours a week, and they will be willing to do that because they are working for the students," Rothert said.\nShe said she is apprehensive about losing important policies that have been designed for the old computer system. Although she had concerns about GradPact, which was eliminated because it won't work with the new system, Rothert said she was worried losing GradPact might be the start of a trend.\n"Will we lose the ability to make educational policy?" she asked. "And will that come at the cost of the student?"\n"GradPact is one of thousands of problems, and the question will be: Which programs are we going to use?"\nThose involved with PeopleSoft understood that when it was purchased it would not accept all the programs implemented in IU's old system. PeopleSoft is a generic program not customized for an individual university, meaning not all of IU's current programs will fit into PeopleSoft and instead must be customized, which is costly. In this case, the Bloomington Faculty Council members assess the situation and decide if a particular program is financially worth saving.\nLast December, the BFC announced GradPact, which guaranteed IU would cover the cost of extra classes if a student was unable to graduate within four years, would be too expensive to maintain under the PeopleSoft system. Salvaging the program would initially cost an estimated $200,000 and $60,000 annually. \nThe BFC also is discussing how the grade replacement (FX), pass/fail, "raincheck" and waitlist policies will interact with the new software. PeopleSoft will only allow a student to waitlist a section rather than an entire course.\nSteven Wietstock, undergraduate academic adviser for the chemistry department, oversees the Local Implementation Team, which advises those implementing the SIS program. Because of the project's scale, he said he expected the implementation to be difficult and understands that PeopleSoft meetings will take advisers' time, but affirmed everything is being done in the students' best interest.\n"Right now this team is very concerned with what the students are doing," Wietstock said. "We are acting as the eyes and ears of the students and advisers. We are looking at it from both perspectives and saying, 'You know, here is what Insite does. Is there something comparable the software can do for us?' In some cases it gives us much better service. In other ways it will be much more difficult for us."\nConcerns about the switch to PeopleSoft have been voiced at BFC meetings, where attendees discuss policy issues. Philosophy professor Michael Morgan, a BFC member on the Budget Affairs Committee, has attended voting and informational meetings about policies affected by PeopleSoft.\n"There is this big concern that all of these things we made decisions for at the University for the educational system that we think are valuable are going to be set aside," Morgan said. "One of our big concerns is: Are we going to be run by the technology?"\nHe said he had no doubt the system will have its advantages. But he said he had not been given adequate information and time to make policy decisions, which was the case with the GradPact discussion.\n"They brought it (GradPact) to us with no information about what it originally cost, how much adviser time was involved, the money it took to carry it out, or the precise data about how many students were affected," Morgan said. "We were given a little mumbo-jumbo and basically told it was not worth doing."\nBudget dilemma\nBesides not incorporating current IU programs, PeopleSoft could cause headaches over finances. The software has already done so at other schools.\nFive years after California State University committed to PeopleSoft to integrate its 23 campuses, 407,000 students and 44,000 faculty, the project cost about $400 million, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. \nHossler said IU is dedicated to completing the project with as little economic strain as possible. But Morgan said the University's ambition to conserve money could cause a problem with administration.\n"We are cutting corners to make it look like we are not spending as much money," Morgan said.\nHolland, associate vice president of University Information Systems, said $27 million dollars will be spent for technical resources, including staff, consultants and training.\nThe University used personnel from IU offices to implement the software. Replacement staff known as "backfill" filled some vacancies. Hossler said about $9 million was spent on backfill. \nMorgan said many people pulled to work on the implementation were key to their positions, and a less qualified replacement or no replacement at all could cause a problem.\n"Admissions has exploded in the past few years, and you can't tell me that the meticulous care they took of admissions prior to PeopleSoft is now able to be handled the way it needs to be handled," Morgan said.\nThe Big picture\nPeopleSoft's Human Resource Management System was implemented last December, and the system handled the first bi-weekly and hourly payroll in early January. Prototyping continues with the Student Information System, and those involved are learning which programs will work, won't work and which programs to keep. \nAmid concerns, the project progresses on with those optimistic about its future.\nIU Student Association Vice President Judd Arnold, a BFC member, said IUSA is backing the PeopleSoft project. He said the old system was too expensive to maintain and a change had to be made in the students' interest.\n"The students shouldn't see a lot of change, but as with any new system, there is going to be an adjustment period," said Arnold, a senior. "Where they should see an impact is that this is another thing the University is doing to cut cost, and as an end result of that, it will keep tuition down."\nLibrary and information science professor Howard Rosenbaum, who is studying the project, said the choice to move to a new system was not a matter of whether the current system is good or bad, but that it was just old. He compared the PeopleSoft purchase to someone buying a new laptop because it's trendy rather than because the old laptop no longer worked.\nWietstock said when it is completed, the new system won't affect students as much as they might think. He said students might expect a different appearance on their computer screens, but the actual use will be practically the same as the old system. Faculty will favor the new system when it is completely implemented, he said.\n"From a faculty perspective, there is going to be a learning curve," Wietstock said. "But looking at what is available, it is going to be easier to use than the current system, so you may see them using it even more. It will be a Web-based system, which is the kind of thing people are used to now. It is much more user friendly than the current system."\nWietstock said communication and organization are key to the software implementation, something he learned from other universities. \nHe said he was not involved in the final decision to choose PeopleSoft, but he and others involved must do their best to make it work.\n"Well, I think at this point we're all resigned to the fact that we are going to deal with PeopleSoft," Wietstock said. "We know it's coming. We know there are going to be problems. Our concern is making sure we get good information, know how to deal with the problems and know who to get in contact with if there are issues"