Growing the research enterprise at Rice is

a major goal of the Vision for the Second

Century. Toward this end, research
administration must transition its paperbased processes into electronic workflows
to make the process more productive and
effective. This document outlines how
this transition will happen, its impact on
Rice faculty and staff, and the timeline and
major milestones for the transition to the
electronic research administration system,
termed eRA.

Toward Electronic
Research
Administration
The What, Why, How, and
When for Making Rices
Research Administration
Paperless
The eRA Planning Team: Kathy Collins, Vicki
Colvin, Randy Castiglioni, Kamran Khan, Kevin
Kirby, Andrea Martin, Evelyn Stewart, Chuck
Tarantino, William Turner, Sarah White
May 14, 2012

Page

1)

Executive summary

What is the electronic research administration system and what benefits will it confer?
The first goal listed in Rices Vision for the Second Century to visibly and substantially increase our
commitment to our research mission and raise our research and scholarship profile is perhaps
one of the most critical for the University. In an effort to fulfill this goal, we are transitioning our
paper-based research administration processes to an electronic research administration system,
termed eRA. Comprising simple, intuitive, and integrated electronic modules, this new system will
confer numerous benefits. It will reduce the sometimes-frustrating administrative barriers that
faculty face when preparing and submitting their proposals, thereby saving faculty and staff
significant stress and time. It will link to University databases, reducing the time needed to look up
administrative and budget details, and in many cases will automatically populating administrative and
budget forms. In turn, the system will make it feasible for faculty to pursue not only conventional
proposals, but also larger, more complex, and potentially more lucrative funding opportunities. And
finally, because eRA will include modules for processing protocols and other forms pertaining to
human subjects, animal welfare, biohazards, conflicts of interest, and export controls, it will ensure
that faculty are compliant with federal regulations.
Why is there a need to implement an electronic research administration system?
The academic research environment has undergone and is continuing to undergo significant
changes that affect every universitys research enterprise. Among these are changes in the level of
funding available, especially from federal sponsors; in the percentage of awards given; in the
proposal submission process; and in the number and extent of federal regulations across all areas of
research compliance. Attempting to manage such extensive changes with a paper-based research
administration system is becoming increasingly cumbersome, not to mention time-consuming.
Keeping pace with these changes requires a different approach, one that fully integrates and
streamlines the many tasks involved in preparing and submitting proposals and in tracking
compliance with federal regulations. eRA offers these capabilities.
When and how will the electronic research administration system be implemented?
Rice will begin to transition to an electronic research administration system in July 2012. During
Phase 1, which lasts one year, we will purchase and roll out Cayuse 424 and Cayuse SP, and will
institute an interim compliance solution. Several months before the initiation of Phase 2 we will reevaluate our compliance needs based on our then current situation and the products available on the
market. During Phase 2, we will deploy the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) compliance modules that will make it possible for
protocols to be submitted, reviewed, and tracked electronically. Subsequent phases will include the
creation of a budget tool, boilerplate material and a proposal library, as well as the development of
tools to produce biographical sketches and current and pending support information sheets in
agency-appropriate formats.
What has been the process for developing the transition and implementation plan?
Results from a recent faculty survey indicated a clear need to rethink our research administration
process, to integrate all research administration tasks, and to develop a more efficient and effective
approach. A majority of respondents expressed a desire for an electronic system. To this end, we
formed an electronic research administration planning team, whose members conducted a needs
assessment, investigated and evaluated the wide variety of electronic systems available, and then
Page

developed a set of recommendations for transitioning from a paper-based to an electronic research

administration system. This report summarizes their recommendations.

2)

Vision and mission

Rices Vision for the Second Century clearly recognizes the centrality of research to the Universitys
future. For Rice to comfortably secure its position as a leading global university, its scholarship
must be both recognized and applied all over the world. Research is also emerging as an important
element of any universitys financial operations. Related expenditures provide a vital source of
revenue as the financial pressures on higher education have grown, and the global competition for
students and faculty has heightened.
For Rice to realize this vision for its research
enterprise requires a very energetic, successful, and
Wemustvisiblyandsubstantially
entrepreneurial faculty. One consequence of having
increaseourcommitmenttoour
such an active faculty will be an increased volume of
researchmissionandraiseour
proposals. Because of Rices small size, we need to
researchandscholarshipprofile.
submit proposals with far more frequency and with
greater success than our colleagues at larger peer

RiceUniversitys
institutions if we are to fulfill the vision of this
VisionfortheSecondCentury
research enterprise. A prolific faculty also helps offset
the single-digit proposal success rates at agencies of
most importance to Rice faculty. However, if not appropriately managed, larger proposal volumes
can mean more stress on both faculty time and research administration infrastructure.
Another consequence of a more aggressive research funding culture will be the pursuit of larger
collaborative grants, often funded through less traditional entities (e.g., corporations, international
partners). These activities often require more specialized and engaged efforts on the part of research
administrators. Such attention is only possible if the research administration is not overburdened by
the demands of deadline-driven grants. At Rice, we risk overlooking or even abandoning the
more complex, lucrative, and open-ended funding opportunities because both faculty and staff are
overwhelmed with conventional proposals. These pressures demand that we do everything possible
to reduce the administrative barriers faced by faculty and staff when they write grants and manage
their research awards.
To achieve this goal, we propose to create simple, intuitive, and fully electronic systems for
research administration functions that range from proposal development to pre-award
submission and that ultimately link to post-award acceptance. Such paperless systems wont
go so far as to make research administration enjoyable, but they can ensure that faculty and staff can
propose and manage research awards with minimal frustration and delay. They will also automate
many processes related to gathering CVs, award data, and other investigator information, thereby
minimizing the time needed to put together larger multi-PI grants.

Page

Our institution must also recognize that with increased research volume there is an increased
responsibility to comply with federal regulations. The research compliance landscape has changed
substantially in the last several years, and there is an expectation that in the areas such as animal
welfare, conflict of interest, and export control, major research universities will use standard
operating procedures that rely on robust, electronic databases that track faculty status and
compliance. Rice must adapt to fulfill its new and expanding compliance responsibilities.
The mission of the electronic research administration program is to transition Rices
research administration paper processes into functional, intuitive, and efficient electronic
systems. These new electronic systems must be effectively integrated into the existing operations of
departments, deans, and central research administration. Additionally, the plan for the transition
must acknowledge that the project requires far more than the installation of new software packages
for grant management and submission; rather, it demands new processes and, in some cases, new
policies that embed these capabilities into the day-to-day activities of diverse units. These new
processes and policies must be aligned with our organization and culture.
We will achieve this mission by:

3)

Carefully planned implementation of specialty software designed for the research enterprise
of higher education. Our chosen providers, Cayuse 424/SP and Hurons Click Portal
software, are used by many of our peer institutions (see table 2).

Concurrently developing a limited set of custom software tools that integrate these new
research administrative capabilities with existing Rice systems; we want and need the
electronic interface to be familiar to our staff and faculty.

Providing specialized databases for CVs, current and pending support, and suggested
boilerplate text that specifically address the needs of multi-PI proposals.

Developing a proactive engagement plan that allows all stakeholders to provide input and
receive training as the programs are tested, piloted, and ultimately rolled out.

Why now? Whats the motivation for this investment and this transition?

The real question for Rice is: Why did it take so long? Business processes in higher education are
largely electronic now. Rice has had on-line admissions, registration, and purchasing for more than
five years. The motivation for these other transitions was simply scalability an electronic business
process remains functional even with rapid growth. Rice now receives more than 15,000 student
applicants a year a number that would have been unfathomable to manage in a paper-based
system. The number of proposals submitted has been growing at more than 10% a year (see Table
1), which means that electronic systems will lessen the pressure of this growth in a similar fashion.

Page

ProposalSuccessRateFY2006FY2011
ProposalStatus

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

Awarded

367

395

394

399

440

320

Rejected

155

153

134

161

241

136

Pending/TimedOut

277

252

269

416

450

466

Withdrawn

PITransfer

ProposalTotals

805

805

801

982

1133

922

%SuccessRate=

45.59%

49.1%

49.2%

40.6%

38.8%

34.7%

Table1.RiceUniversitysproposalsuccessrates.

Another answer to the question of Why now? is that all federal funding agencies are now
completely electronic. Most grants have to be submitted electronically, and it is a rare event for a
federal funding agency to even allow a paper submission. By clinging to a paper-based system, Rice
requires enormous extra effort from its staff who have to manage research administration in the
worst of both worlds transitioning back and forth between paper and electronic documents.
Also important to recognize is that the federal government itself is standardizing proposal
submissions, and familiar systems like FastLane are due to be phased out as a common standard
interface, research.gov, replaces all agency submissions. Even if Rice doesnt implement a new
electronic system, faculty will nevertheless still have to learn a new grants.gov type of submission
format by 2014; thus this transition to an electronic research administration system is timed to
coincide with this new requirement. Additionally, our eRA vendor, Cayuse, provides the backbone
for the new federal system, which will make faculty retraining seamless.
Finally, we cannot find a single peer institution that does not handle its research administration in an
electronic fashion (see Table 2). This becomes important as best practices for research compliance
now are geared toward highly automated and on-line electronic systems. Indeed, in most
universities, a grant could not be submitted if an animal protocol was not up to date; these
universities systems are so tightly integrated that this information would be instantly noticeable and
available to all. At Rice, however, our paper-based systems leave open the real possibility of human
error and little ability to guarantee that our compliance databases are correct and up to date.

Page

Cayuse

InfoEd

Coeus

Other

CalTech

Columbia

Cornell

GATech

Harvard

MIT

NotreDame

Princeton

Stanford

UCBerkley

University

UCLA
UniversityofNewMexico
UTAustin

Table2.ElectronicresearchadministrationsystemsusedbyRicespeerinstitutions.

4)

Anticipated outcomes and metrics

a. The new eRA system will reduce the time it takes faculty to prepare proposals. Many
of the administrative and budget forms will have automatic links to campus databases,
thereby reducing the look-up time for details and improving the accuracy of vital grant
information. Faculty will also have a proposal preparation site that provides access to past
proposals for templates, as well as a library of boilerplate contributions that provide sample
verbiage for many necessary but non-technical proposal sections. Finally, many complex
elements of the proposal will be automatically formatted for submission to major agency
sites. [Metrics: Faculty customer service survey; number of proposals submitted corrected for past trends;
access hits on boilerplate databases.]
b. Staff will be able to support more proposals from more faculty, so that the projected
growth in proposal volume will be more easily managed. Staff will benefit from the
electronic routing features that will eliminate the need to physically hand-deliver proposals to
multiple campus offices for signatures. In addition, links to campus databases and Banner
will standardize data entry into proposal documents and limit the time-consuming task of
correcting information both in pre- and post-award functions. [Metric: Staff customer service
survey; number of proposals submitted corrected for past trends; error rates in budgets (e.g., returns,
disconnects).]
c. Research compliance will be more uniform and less time-consuming for both faculty
and staff. Mandated compliance protocols will be generated and stored on-line, and review

Page

meetings will not require the generation of massive amounts of paper. Pre-award efficiency
will also be increased as uniform, automatically populated databases make it possible to share
information on the latest review and protocol status. E-forms capability will allow more
comprehensive coverage of complex compliance issues related to conflict-of-interest.
d. Larger center grants will be easier and less time intensive to assemble. Larger center
grants involve multiple investigators who are often located across multiple campuses. Many
of our potential partners will be able to interface directly with our electronic systems, which
will streamline the administrative details. [Metric: Number of larger proposals submitted, access hits
on boilerplate databases.]

Before

After

EnterinformationonR/Aformbyhand

AutomaticdatafillinofR/Aform

FindagencyformsonOSRsite

Appropriateformsprovidedonceagencyisidentified
(98%offunders)

Compileallproposalpiecesbyhand

AutomaticgenerationoffinalproposalPDF

UseExcelcalculatingbudget

UsebudgettooltopullsalaryinfofromBanner

Lookupprotocolnumbers,dates

Automaticlinktodatabaseforprotocols

Emailpeopleforboilerplate

Boilerplatelibrarylinkedtoproposalsetup

EmailpeopleforCVs

CVsautomaticallygeneratedfromannualreport

Emailpeopleforcurrent/pendingsupport

Current/pendingsupportgeneratedfromOSR

RouteR/Aformforsignaturesbyhand

Sendoffproposalforreviewelectronically

Digthroughemailsforproposalattachments Allproposaldocuments/versionsincommondatabase
Printhardcopiesforcompliancemeetings

Paperlesscompliancemeetingsandvoting

Confirmcompliancebyhand

Commondatabasewithcompliancedata

Table3.BenefitsofeRAsystemforproposalpreparation.

5)

The system requirements: Grant processing and compliance

a. A key objective of the eRA system is to streamline the preparation and submission of
grants and contracts. The eRA planning team is recommending Cayuse 424 + SP for our
proposal preparation and submittal needs. The Cayuse 424 + SP product is designed to
facilitate preparation and submittal of OMB Standard Form 424, which is required for
federal grants. Cayuse 424 + SP functionality streamlines the following proposal tasks:
i.

Downloading funding opportunities from Grants.gov and Research.gov.

Page

ii. Maintaining a central database of institutional information. The database populates

proposal forms with information about Rice and its affiliated organizations. The
information can include address, Dunns number, signing officials, assurances,
certifications, fringe rates, indirect cost rates, and other related information.
iii. Maintaining a central database of investigator profiles. The database populates proposal
forms with investigator information such as degrees, contact information, biographical
sketches, and compensation.
iv. Integrating the proposal narrative into the submittal package.
v. Routing completed proposal packages for electronic review and approval.
vi. Submitting proposals electronically to Grants.gov and Research.gov.
vii. Reporting proposal, award, and efficiency statistics by PI, department, school, etc.
b. Another important objective of the eRA system is to automate a range of research
compliance processes associated with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
(IACUC), the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Institutional Biosafety Committee
(IBC), and The Institutional Safety Committee (RISC). The eRA Steering Committee is
currently recommending Hurons Click Portal software. This product is planned for Phase 2
and will be re-evaluated before implementation. The Click Portal software functionality
streamlines the following activities:
i.

Allowing PIs to prepare and submit protocols electronically to compliance committee

administrators. Protocol documents will be stored online where PIs and committee
members who need to review the protocols can access them.

ii. Maintaining other electronic documents necessary to facilitate work with humans,
animals, biohazards, etc. Such documents include sample informed consent forms and
inter-institutional memorandums of understanding.
iii. Maintaining a necessary connection between pending and approved protocols and their
associated sponsored research award documents.
iv. Voting and retaining paperless voting records of protocols.
v. Maintaining a database of critical protocol dates and notifying PIs when action is
necessary.
In addition to the Cayuse and Click Portal software, we anticipate that other modules will be created
and maintained by the Rice IT and Administrative Systems staff. These modules may include tools
for creating and tracking budgets and for integrating Banner data, e-forms, etc.

Page

6) The project: Actions for transitioning Rices research administration

a. Achieving the outcomes described above will require a set of specific actions involving the

purchasing and licensing of specialty software packages, Rice design of data mapping and
user interfaces, and concurrent development of custom modules that integrate these
standard packages with Rice systems.
b. We will purchase and integrate Cayuse 424, which is a replacement of our existing R&A
form; a key benefit of doing so will be the ability to automatically populate fields from a
qualified and consistent database. Also, this program will allow for direct submissions to
multiple agencies, and will make the lengthy and complex forms section of the OSR website
obsolete, as this program will draw the latest forms directly from the sponsors. A custom
aspect of this deployment will be the look/feel/design of the proposal information page so
that it is as similar as practicable to our conventional R&A form. Additionally, a budget tool
will draw information from Banner to automatically populate the budget in the appropriate
budget template.
c. We will purchase and integrate Cayuse SP, which works in conjunction with Cayuse 424. The
SP package will make it possible to electronically route proposals and obtain signatures for
approval. This package will eliminate the need for walking paper proposals to obtain
signatures. A custom feature that will be implemented is an integrated database and
document management system to keep all copies and information about a proposal in a
central location. The standard mode for Cayuse is simply attached files, and we will create a
shared database that can be accessed for the ancillary documentation associated with a
proposal.
d. We will purchase and integrate Click Portal for research compliance. Research compliance
requires tools to facilitate oversight and management of potential compliance issues, as well
as tracking systems to ensure that all researchers at the time of application are compliant
with established policy. Click provides this service and will integrate well with our current
compliance-training module, CITI. In addition, a custom feature to be developed is a
database of compliance information (including protocol numbers, date approved, etc.) that
will port directly into the electronic proposal review and approval forms.
e. A library of boilerplate sections will include suggested budget justifications, management
plans, instrumentation and facilities information, and other common sections for which
standard documentation and language is required. This library will be available for use with
Cayuse 424 to make it faster and more efficient to complete proposals.
f. Finally, tools that produce CVs in the appropriate formats, as well as tools that create
accurate current and pending information sheets, will be developed through use of both
annual report data and OSR information. Finding such information is laborious and is
especially burdensome for larger center grant proposals.

Page

7) The Managem
ment Plan

a. The
T project teeam will con
nsist of six fuull-time team
m members pplus backfill positions in OSR
an
nd RCA and analysts exp
perienced with
h Banner andd OnBase.
b. We
W anticipate completing the project in three phasses over five years. Near tthe completiion of
eaach phase, th
he scope and decisions fo
or the subsequ
quent phases will be re-evvaluated.

Ch
hart2.Summ
marylevelpro
ojectschedulee.

Phase
P
1 will co
onsist of the definition an
nd implemenntation of Caayuse 424 andd SP, which
to
ogether will take
t
roughly 26 weeks. Th
he definition pphase will takee approximattely 12 weekss and
will
w provide an
n opportunitty to compare and contraast Rices exissting processses as they relate
to
o Cayuses fuunctionality. Sources
S
of daata (i.e., Bannner) will be identified andd mapped fro
om
th
he source sysstems to Cayuuse. The Cayyuse implemenntation phase iss expected to
o be
ap
pproximatelyy 14 weeks an
nd will includ
de beta workk with certainn departmentts that have
aggreed to test the system. An
A interim compliance
c
syystem will bee instituted in
n Phase 1 to
crreate a bridgee until Click Commerce compliance
c
m
modules are ffunctional.
Near
N the com
mpletion of Ph
hase 1, the prroject team w
will re-evaluaate the scope of the future
phases and deetermine wheether Click Portal softwarre is still the m
most approp
priate choice for
co
ompliance an
nd whether other
o
productts have emerrged to accom
mmodate ourr budgeting aand
e--form requireements.
Phase
P
2 will co
omprise the implementattion of the IR
RB and IACU
UC complian
nce systems. The
un
niversities we interviewed
d indicated th
hat, on averaage, they were able to imp
plement each
h
Click
C
Commeerce module over
o a 12-18 month periood. It should be noted thaat Click Porttal
has a less custtomizable verrsions of theeir IRB produuct in development that m
may meet Ricces
needs with a much
m
shorterr implementaation timefraame.
Phase
P
3 will en
ncompass th
he implementtation of rDN
NA/IBC andd the RISC co
ompliance
modules,
m
as well
w as a budgget tool and various
v
e-form
ms. These m
modules have been placedd at
th
he end of thee implementaation schedulle because thhey have loweer priority in terms of riskk and
urrgency, and because
b
thesee products an
nd platformss have the higghest likeliho
ood of maturring
ovver the life of
o our projectt.

Pagge

8)

Anticipated risks along with solutions and contingency plans

Like any complex software implementation, this project has a number of risk factors that
could cause the project to fall short of its goals. The table below outlines several risk factors
for this project and their associated mitigation measures.

Risk

SolutionsandMitigation

a.Miscommunication
ofexpectationsand
capabilities

Discussspecificneedswithallpotentialusers
Analyzesystemcapabilitiescarefully(sitevisits)
Proactivelyplancommunicationsandtraining
Allocateadequateresources(dontcutcorners)

b.Poorlyexecuted
planandshoddy
implementation

Investinaprojectmanager
Buildstaffredundancyintheprojectorganization
Engagestakeholdersearlyanddontcentralize
Investigatecapabilitiesofthepackagescarefully

c.Projectexceeds
budget

Limitscopeandtimeofanyconsultingwork
Communicateandnegotiatewithvendorsupfront
Obtainsolid,writtenestimatesofthecostsforcustomization
Proactivelycommunicateandtrainusers

d.Usersrefuseto
adoptpackages

Clearlyidentifyadvantagestousersbeforeimplementingsystem
Makesuretoincludevaluablefeatures
Adoptbestpracticesfromelsewhere(sitevisits)

Table5.Projectrisksandmitigationmeasures.

a. Risk: Miscommunication of expectations and capabilities. Software implementation

projects frequently have a mismatch between user needs and system capabilities. Sometimes
that results from poorly defined system requirements. Software vendors also have a
reputation for always answering yes to the question can your program do, when they
really mean our programmers can make it do that. As users, we also have a tendency to
imagine what software should do and assume that it does do that. To mitigate the risks of
mismatched expectations and capabilities, we will:
Discuss specific needs with all potential users. This project was initiated in the fall of 2009
with the formation of a Research Administration Task Force charged with assessing and
reviewing institutional needs for an integrated electronic research administration system.
After conducting this review, Research administrators and faculty determined that Cayuse
424/SP and Click Portal compliance software were the best fit for the requirements outlined.
As a more comprehensive understanding of these systems continues to unfold, the faculty

Page 10

and research administrators will be routinely advised about system capabilities to manage
expectations of the system capabilities.
Analyze system capabilities carefully. Following vendor presentations of their systems
capabilities, we contacted universities that have implemented Cayuse and Click Portal. These
universities included Wake Forest, Virginia Commonwealth, University of Texas San
Antonio, University of New Mexico, and Notre Dame. During these conversations, we
discussed the systems capabilities, viewed training materials, and examined implementation
time lines and lessons learned. These fact-finding efforts will continue as we move forward.
Proactively plan communications and training. Frequent communication with Rices research
community is necessary to establish realistic expectations about the systems, their
capabilities, when certain functionality will be available, and who will be impacted. The
objective is to educate people about the project, keep them posted about upcoming events,
and make them aware of progress and changes.
b. Risk: Poorly executed plan and shoddy implementation. The lack of effective
management and over-burdened staff can lead to poor outcomes. Moreover, project knowhow may be lost through the attrition of project staff. To mitigate the risks of having a
poorly executed plan and shoddy implementation, we will:
Allocate adequate resources (wont cut corners). Compared to our peer institutions, Rice has
a very lean organization for research administration both per million dollars of awards and
per number of proposals submitted annually. With already overstressed OSR and RCA staff,
the project team outlined in Section 7 is essential to having a fully focused initiative.
Invest in a project manager. Approximately 75% of the cost of this project is labor provided
by Rice employees or external consultants. Labor-intensive projects can get off track when
team members dont understand the scope of their work; when there is poor communication
between team members; when team members are confused about priorities; and when issues
are not escalated and addressed in a timely manner. The project manager is the person who
will be given the responsibility of ensuring that such issues are addressed and that the project
stays on track and runs smoothly. Ideally, the project manager will have experience managing
a Cayuse and/or Click Portal implementation, knowledge of the sponsored research grant
and compliance domains, excellent communication skills, and proven leadership experience.
The project manager will also serve as the primary coordinator between the project team,
external consultants, and senior Rice administration.
Build staff redundancy in the project organization. When only a single individual possesses
all crucial project knowledge, the project can be jeopardized if that individual is unavailable
at a critical moment or if that person leaves the University. Therefore, key roles such as the
Business Analyst and Software Analyst should have some redundancy. This can be
accomplished by setting up senior/junior positions or cross-training team members.

Page 11

Engage stakeholders early and dont centralize. Faculty and research administrators are the
primary stakeholders for this project. These stakeholders were engaged in the very early
stages of the project, specifically during the requirements definition and vendor selection. A
great deal of time has passed with minimal stakeholder involvement, and this may result in
the perception that eRA is a central administration project that has been imposed upon
faculty. Thus, immediate efforts to re-engage faculty and research administrators will be
needed to get buy-in.
c. Risk: Project exceeds budget. Software projects often incur cost over runs because of
project delays, poor project definition or scope definition for consultants and in-house staff.
To mitigate the risks of exceeding the budget, we will:
Manage decisions and deliverables. Poor schedule management is usually accompanied with
cost overruns. Effective schedule management begins with good project definition and a
realistic baseline schedule. From that point on, the project manager will institute a decision
management system to keep the project moving. When it appears that deliverable milestones
are in jeopardy, the project manager will insist on recovery plans to get the project back on
track.
Investigate capabilities of the packages carefully. Ideally, the implementation should not
include any more or any fewer capabilities than what meets users requirements. More
capabilities make the system more complex and wastes financial resources. Too few
capabilities require building additional functionality into the system to fulfill shortcomings at
a later date, thereby increasing the cost of the system over the budget allocated for it. These
packages continue to evolve, so we must continually visit with the vendors and other
institutions and evaluate each packages capabilities first-hand.
Limit the scope and time of consulting work. Consulting time is very expensive. Therefore,
it is essential that we limit the scope and time of consulting work to those tasks that require
special expertise that we do not have internally. Dividing consulting assignments into small
discrete pieces will make it possible to tightly manage consulting costs.
Communicate and negotiate with vendors up front. To ensure a clear understanding of the
capabilities of the vendors systems, the scope of consulting services, and the associated
pricing, we will communicate with the vendors up-front. To help us anticipate budget costs,
we will visit with peer institutions that have implemented the same systems and discuss
pricing and implementation costs when possible. Furthermore, we will use Rice resources
who have negotiated for similar products and services.
Obtain solid, written estimates of the costs for customization. Ask for a detailed scope of
work and a fixed price for tasks that can be well defined. Aspects of the work that cannot be

Page 12

well defined will be performed on a time and materials basis, but will be closely monitored
by the project manager and technical specialists.
d. Risk: Users refuse to adopt the packages. The most serious of all risks is that we
implement all the systems and the users refuse to use them. To mitigate the risks of lack of
user adoption, we will:
Proactively communicate and train users. User adoption will benefit if users are regularly
updated on useful capabilities of the system and on the status of various stages of the
implementation. A communications and training plan will be established to convey
information in several forms to reach the broadest possible audience. Carefully targeting the
early adopters will be vital because their experience will set the tone for success. Providing
training and support materials early in the implementation will be important, since early
adaptors will be able to flag potential issues, enabling the project team to address these issues
in the most efficient manner.
Clearly identify advantages to users before implementing the system. Oftentimes when a
new system or process is implemented, people naturally tend to point out its faults rather
than search for its benefits. The project team will clearly and frequently identify the
advantages of the new system to the users to encourage them to adopt the process rapidly
and, equally important, to help them feel comfortable with the system within a relatively
short period of time.
Make sure to include valuable features. Not all features are necessary for having a
functioning system. Key constituents may find certain capabilities desirable and nice to
have. When we evaluate these features, we will estimate the impact that they will have on
users adoption of the system.
Adopt best practices from elsewhere. Several institutions have implemented Cayuse and/or
Click Commerce Compliance. We will take advantage of their experience and document the
best practices that make sense for Rice to implement.

Page 13