Operational

Effectiveness at UCSB

OE Quarterly Planning & Review Session

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

Welcome and Introductions Gene Lucas

Executive Vice-Chancellor

[5 min]

OE Quarterly Review Session

Our Purpose Today…

Opportunity for OE Project Leaders, Co-Chairs, and System Project Representatives to review updates on progress, best practices and challenges with each project

Opportunity to discuss questions regarding scope or project outcomes with Project Leaders to ensure alignment

Opportunity to strategize on ways to leverage the OE initiative to prepare campus for upcoming system implementations and maximize their impact.

INITIATIVES Focus Areas

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Streamline IT governance; Adopt one email/calendaring collaboration suite; Outsource student email

SHOPS & FACILITIES Consolidate machine & maintenance shops; Consolidate procurement; Service benchmarking & optimization

TICKETING & EVENTS Consolidate ticketing platforms; Centralize scheduling & calendaring activity

CAMPUS PERSONNEL Implement ‘UCPath’ and resulting organizational redesign; Implement Kronos campus-wide; Support PMO Set-up

PROCUREMENT Implement ‘Gateway’ procurement system & strategic sourcing

FINANCE Implement new Financial System & PMO Function

STUDENT SERVICES Implement new Student Information System [SIS]

OE Supported Initiatives

FY 2011-12 Q1 | FY 2011-12 Q2| FY 2011-12 Q3 | FY 2011-12 Q4 | FY 2012-13 Q1 | FY 2012-13 Q2 |

1

Phase I: Shop Consolidation Recommendations

Implement Shop Consolidations

2

Phase I: A.S. Ticketing & Events Survey

Ticketing Feasibility Study

Selection of Ticketing System

Central Calendar & Events Portal Project Pilot

3

Phase II: Stage I (Preparation)

• IT Governance Proposal Draft

• UCPath Project Plan

• Kronos Project Plan

• Gateway Project Plan

• SIS Conversion Phase Starts

• Financial System Selection

4

Phase II: Stage II (Rollout Begins)

• IT Proposal Recommendation

• UCPath Planning & Requirements

• Kronos Wave 1

• Gateway Phase I

• SIS Conversion Phase

• Financial System Project Planning & PMO Set-up

1 - Shop Services

2 –A.S. Ticketing/Events Survey & Feasibility Study 2 – Central Calendar & Events Pilot Project

1 – Implement Shop Consolidations

3 – Phase II: Stage I

5 – Phase II: Stage III

4 – Phase II: Stage II

OE Phase I & II Timeline Overview P

hase I

P

hase II

5

Phase II: Stage III (Implementation)

• IT Governance Model Implemented

• Gateway Phase II

• Kronos Wave 2

• UCPath Design Phase Starts

• SIS Core Services Platform Phase

• PMO Established

OE Phase II Governance Structure & Scope Coordinating Committee on Budget Strategy

Gene Lucas (Co-Chair)

Henning Bohn (Co-Chair)

OE Project Leaders

Gene Lucas

David Marshall

Marc Fisher

Ron Cortez

Financial Services

Team

Ron Cortez

Sandra Featherson

Payroll & Personnel

Systems Team

Tricia Hiemstra

Cindy Doherty

Jim Corkill

IT Structure &

Governance Team

Doug Drury

Divy Agrawal

Procurement Team

[Gateway Project]

Jody Kaufman

Bill McTague

Jim Corkill

OE Project Support

Steve Dewart

Lynn McLaughlin-Hill

Christine Griffin

UCPath System Project

Plan

KRONOS Rollout

Evaluate shared service

opportunities for

PPS/HRIS transaction-

based activity, in

coordination with

Financial Services

Team

Propose new IT

Governance Model

Oversee campus-

wide conversion to

Live 365 Suite

Define business

processes & technical

interface

Pilot design & testing

Pilot deployment

Expand adoption to

leverage strategic

sourcing opportunities

Oversee new financial system

selection & implementation

Evaluate implications for

staffing support

Support establishment of

PMO function

18-Month Scope & Desired Outcomes

OE Communications Plan Overview OE Website with Regularly Updated Content

Posting of Suggestions & FAQs, as needed

Posting of Blog Entries under ‘Current News’ on Homepage

Resources Section for white papers, committee notes, etc.

Campus Dlist Memos & Surveys

System specific rollout announcements [e.g., eProcurement pilot]

Campus-wide Surveys for Ticketing & Events; PPS/Kronos

Blog Entries

Notes Summary from key milestone meetings:

Orientation Kick-Off

Committee Co-Chair & Project Leader Review Sessions [Nov, Feb, April]

OE Presentations & Updates by Project Leaders to Campus Groups

Operational Effectiveness Summit Event

Over 100 campus employees attended

5 Institutions of Higher Education were represented, including: Cornell, UC

Berkeley, University of Oregon, UCOP, UC Santa Cruz

OE Phase II A Nexus for IT-Enabled Service Transformation

OE Planning

Forum KRONOS

Gateway

Financial

System

SIS

UCPath

• Assess the savings and benefits of the new IT-enabled

services for campus

• Evaluation of Shared Services Opportunities

• Inter-Project Coordination & Issue Sharing Forum

• Sharing Best Practices for Change Management

• Coordinated Campus Communications & PR Messaging

• Aligning leadership on a unified message supporting change

Gateway Project

Update

Jody Kaufman & Bill McTague

eProcurement Steering Committee Co-Chairs

[10 min]

A Partnership

Strategic buying benefits

Pricing

Selection

Speed

Controls

Payment

Visibility

Sustainability

Gateway to Success

Innovators

Strategic Sourcing

Leadership

Campus Partnership

Campus Partnership

Trailblazers

Dynamic PM

Strong team leaders

Stellar tech support

Gateway Advisors

Gateway Focus Groups

Gateway Partners

Campus community

Green Gateway Student Partners

Influencing consumer demand for

sustainable products

Project Awards:

The Green Initiative Fund

Bren School Master’s Project

July, 2011

Concept

May, 2012

Testing

June, 2012

Early pilots

July, 2012

Pilot Waves

Deployment

$480k in new funds + support from

Accounting/Purchasing

A catalyst for change

Financial System & Project

Management Office Update

Ron Cortez FSIP Executive Sponsor

Sandra Featherson

PMO Startup Team Representative

[10 min]

Actions Taken To Date: • June 2011: Campus makes decision not to move forward with UCLA Project.

• July 2011: Begin Risk Assessment: Gartner Group.

• September 2011: Begin Analyzing 5 Options to Replace Existing System.

• December 2011: FSIP Executive Committee Unanimously Approves Project.

• December 2011: Chancellor Approves Project.

• January 2012: Office of General Counsel Approves Sole Sourcing System.

• January 2012: UCOP and Campus Agree upon terms of Loan.

• February 2012: Academic Senate Approves Project.

• February 2012: President Mark Yudof Approves Project.

• March 2012: Established Start-Up Committee and Project Steering Committee.

• March 2012: Established the Project Management Office Concept.

• March 2012: Hired Moran Consulting to Begin Writing RFS.

• April 2012: Began Advertising Project Management Office Director.

Q4

2011

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

2012

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2013

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2014

eProcurement

Financial

System Phase I

UC PATH

(Wave 3)

Implementation Timeline

Phase 1 Phase 2

Dec. 1 2013 – Oct. 1 2014

Oct. 1 2012 – Oct. 1 2013 UCOP Approval

02-15-12

UC PATH Planning

60 day

overrun Select Implementer

08-15-12

PMO Function

Ron CortezITB

PMO

Director

Project Implem

entation Chart

Decision Makers

Startup TeamTim

Schmidt

Eric Sonquist

Jim Corkill

Tricia Hiemstra

Sandra Featherson

Juli PippinAnalyst

PM

FSIP

PM

Gatew

ay

Percentage of Time

PM

UC Path/

KRONO

S

Implem

entation

Workgroup

Implem

entation

Workgroup

OE Payroll

& Personnel

Systems

Implem

entation

Workgroup Executive Com

mittee

&

PMO

Steering Comm

ittee

Outreach and Confirmation

 

PMO Operating Principles We evaluate decisions and act in the best interest of the campus

overall

We hold the view that we are attempting nothing short of a wholesale culture change of how business at UCSB gets done

We are the cheerleaders, advocates, and champions for a new way of doing business on campus, represented by the PMO and these projects. No naysayers on board.

We share a vision for the four major system implementations being done on time and on budget

Our goal is to create a PMO structure that is successful, to ensure the system implementation projects are successful

We strive to get the right people involved at the right level

Clarify responsibilities and resource commitment

Include right resources at the right time for the right tasks

Promote joint ownership and broad-based support of the solution

PMO Long-Term Vision

The PMO Function…

Oversees the build-out of a world class support infrastructure for world class research

Sets the foundation for a new way of operating, and making decisions as a campus over the next 30 years

Provides visionary and strategic leadership on new systems and projects that are state of the art and world class

Provides a robust, strategic project and technology management capacity for Administrative Services to better serve the campus

Serves as the central hub and point of collaboration between campus control points

Ensures optimal use of budget and resources

UCPath & KRONOS

Project Updates

Cindy Doherty, Jim Corkill, & Tricia Hiemstra

Payroll & Personnel Systems Committee Co-Chairs

[10 min]

Desired Outcomes:

Develop and support a plan for the campus

implementation of the UCPath system, as well as

recommendations streamlining transaction-based

activity on campus.

Provide leadership for campus wide rollout of Kronos

timekeeping system adoption by end of FY 2012-13.

Payroll &

Personnel

Systems Team

Co-Chair Presentation

UCPath Implementation

Serve as advisory committee for the campus transition

to UCPath

Coordinate efforts of various campus constituencies as

they relate to the implementation;

Design Team Members, Subject Matter Experts, Practices

Board Members

In coordination with PMO, serve as core work group to

determine and implement necessary changes in

campus business practices and processes

Kronos Establish a process and provide support for campus

implementation of Kronos

Coordinate implementation with UCPath

In coordination with PMO, serve as core work group to

determine and implement necessary changes in

campus business practices and processes

Benefits and Efficiencies: UCPath

Smooth campus transition to UCPath and service center model

Streamlining and centralizing of campus business processes resulting in budgetary savings in the long term

Staff time spent on consultative and strategic activities rather than transactional/advisory activities

Benefits and Efficiencies: Kronos

Ease of transition to bi-weekly pay schedule for non-

exempt employees

Cost savings prior to UCPath time-keeping solution

Estimated at 65% effort savings

Staff time spent on consultative and strategic activities

rather than transactional/advisory activities

Timeline Year 1 (2011-12)

Kronos: Phase 1 units by June 2012

UCPath: Participation in system-wide design teams, planning and communication

Year 2 (2012-13) Kronos: Phase 2 units by Oct 2012; Phase 3 units by Feb 2013

UCPath: Campus business process review and analysis

Year 3 (2013-14) Kronos: Phase 4 (full implementation) by June 2013

UCPath: Training, Testing & Implementation. Business process implementation (Wave 3 begins Dec 2013, live Oct. 2014)

Project Plan for Immediate Staffing Project/Position Funding Source Status

UCPath

Project Manager [100%, shared

with KRONOS]

UCPath Project Tricia recruiting

Project Assistant/Analyst [100%] UCPath Project Tricia recruiting

Database Analyst [50%, shared

with FSIP]

FSIP & UCPath Project Doug recruiting

Business Process Analyst [50%] UCPath Project Doug recruiting

1 HR AA 3 [100%] UCPath Project Tricia recruiting

2 HR Analysts [100%] UCPath Project Tricia recruiting

1 HR Coordinator [100%] UCPath Project Tricia recruiting

2 Payroll Coordinators [50% each] UCPath Project Filled

KRONOS

KRONOS Administrator [100%] Control points, rolled up from

per user fee calculation

CNT [50% shared with Gateway] Admin service Doug recruiting

Needs: Kronos Establishment of Kronos Administrative position

(located in Housing)

Designate lead on this recruitment

Funding model for Administrator and CNT

After full implementation rolled up from user fees

During implementation funding decision needed

User costs: Kronos

Kronos Cost to UCSB UCSB Staff and Equipment Cost Total Cost

Initial

License

cost

Annual

Maintenance

Annual Kronos

Admin 100%

FTE

Annual Kronos

Tech 50% FTE Annual Server

Cost

Annual

Support

Cost

Initial

Cost

Per

User

Annual

Cost

Per

User

(w/o

support) (20% of

license)

$96655 / 10,000

users $48827 / 10,000

users $3500 / 10,000

users

Basic

Pkg $25.00 $5.00 $9.67 + $4.88 + $0.35 = $14.90 $30.00 $19.90

Full

Pkg $48.00 $9.60 $9.67 + $4.88 + $0.35 = $14.90 $57.60 $24.50

Needs: UCPath Determination of structure of and interaction between

campus implementation entities: Project Manager, Payroll

& Personnel Team, OE Leadership, Campus Leadership,

UCPath Leadership

Staffing beyond “immediate”

Wave 3 participation is critical for sequencing of our other

key projects.

Communication to campus regarding UCPath Project

SIS Modernization

Project Update

Lubo Bojilov Executive Director SIS&T and Student Affairs CTO

Diana Antova

SIS Conversion PM and Manager Database & QA Services, SIS&T

[10 min]

Project Overview The UCSB Student Information System (SIS)

Mainframe based; has been developed over 3 decades Consists of ~ 20 core applications (Admissions, Enrollment, Student Records, Financial Aid…)

Phase 1 - Conversion: Enterprise security framework Data and systems interfaces framework Infrastructure – network, servers, and storage (including load balancing and DR) Code, user interface, batch jobs and data conversion

Phase 2 – Expansion: Improve applications architecture and user interfaces of the converted core systems Enterprise level data reporting and decision support management infrastructure Content and communications management framework Business process management framework

Phase 3 – Modernization: Unified enterprise platform for all student services, to include modern service-oriented and

mobile-enabled portal infrastructure Integrate and modernize the primary student systems and processes Develop integrated application extension points for external systems

SIS Mainframe Conversion GOLD, AAA, eGrades, Insurance Waiver, DSP, Online Catalog, L&S Academic Advising, Document Management, Inside Admissions, DeltaSys, OnlineSIR, Orientation, Arts and Lectures, SLR, Judicial Affairs, Public Verifications, Parent Info, TEAS, TTS, DARS, BARC…

NATURAL

SREG

UADM

GSFR

STAR

USEC

INDX

CRES

FAID

STAB

CTAB

ADMS

SSDA

IRES

NATURAL

APEX ALLN ACPR POTS CATS GLXX REXX

…

ADABAS Fin Data

ADABAS 135M records

GOLD AAA eGrades BARC

UCOP

UCSB

Code Conversion

ODS/DW

DARS IA DSP L&S …

Jobs Conversion

Data Conversion

iSIS (web)

SREG

UADM

GSFR

STAR

USEC

INDX

CRES

FAID

STAB

CTAB

ADMS

SSDA

IRES

MS SQL

Server

Project Benefits • Mitigating risks associated with

– Retirement of long-term domain experts (technical & functional)

– The mainframe legacy platform

• The most reasonable approach than any other option – Off the mainframe in 18 months

– Quick adoption with minimum disruption to the functional and academic staff

– Minimized change impacts to complex processes, data flows, and academic requirements

• Moving towards standards based technologies – Standardized technology platform for ease of maintenance and developer

productivity – Unification of technology sets to leverage resources

• Not vendor but campus driven priorities – The functional, academic and technical units can define and prioritize

functionality, technology and objectives

Project Cost & Timeline Conversion: Feb 2011 – Aug 2012

Out-of-pocket cost ~ $3.3M Estimated staff allocation ~ $1.2M*

Expansion: Sep 2012 – Aug 2013 Out-of-pocket cost ~ $1.8M Estimated staff allocation ~ $2.0M*

Modernization: Sep 2013 – Aug 2015 Out-of-pocket cost ~ $2.5M Estimated staff allocation ~ $3.7M*

* All staff allocation estimates are based on project participation of existing

functional, technical and academic staff, ranging from 5% to 75% participation (35% on average), with exception of 2 FTE allocated 100% as Quality Assurance coordinators

Project Status Accomplishments:

– Code & Data Clean-up

– Database Structure Migration

– Data Conversion

– Test Cases Creation (more than 1,300 test cases)

– 11 Applications Converted of 18 Total

Next Phase

– Scheduled to have all applications converted by June 18

– SIS code freeze as of June 15

– Integration, Performance Optimization, User Acceptance Testing, Fixes, Training and Pre-Production Preparation

Project Release

Downtime Planning for Cutoff in August 2012

~ 4 days of downtime to cut-over and transfer the data

Target cutoff at the end of August 2012

Coordination with various departments

Will issue formal dates next month

IT Governance Update

Doug Drury & Divy Agrawal

IT OE Phase II Committee Co-Chairs

[10 min]

Background UCSB IT decision-making is highly fragmented due to confusing

and overlapping structure of multiple IT Committees: ITPG, ATPG,EISPG, and ITB

UCSB IT is decentralized

Existing committee structure had no authority to facilitate campus-level IT activities – only discuss needs

Approach

Create a structure that is empowered to facilitate campus level IT initiatives

Create a structure that facilitates and fosters co-operation across organization boundaries

Create a structure that efficiently achieves campus IT needs

Previous IT Governance

Committee Structure UCSB Faculty UCSB Administration/Staff

Deans &

Department Chairs

ATPG

BEG

ITPG EISPG

ITB

WSG SWG

Chancellor & EVC

MDG

Receives input from:

Sends Representativev IT Staff

IMWG

Academic Senate

Proposed IT Governance

Structure UCSB Faculty UCSB Administration/Staff

Academic Senate

IT

Board

Chancellor & EVC

IT Council

Control Point Representative

Receives input from:

Sends Representative

IT OE Working Group Update Key Task Timeline

Develop pictorial representations of IT

services provided by local IT units in each

Division

Develop pictorial representation of IT

infrastructure needs of the 3 systems

projects

October, 2011

Evaluate the common IT services provided

across all IT units, as well as required by

new IT systems November, 2011

Develop a proposal for a new Governance

Structure that would provide a common

service platform for IT infrastructure needs

campus-wide

January – March, 2012

Milestone: Deliverable to OE Project

Leadership is a formal recommendation

for a new IT Governance & Organizational

Structure

April, 2012

IT Committee Objectives Identify the campus IT governance structure

Specify the principles and responsibilities of IT

governance

Define the scope of an OIST organization that

addresses Infrastructure, Policy, and Standards

Provide oversight for MS Office 365 project

Identify Campus IT Governance

Structure IT Governance Document completed

Suggested structure consists of ITB and IT Council

ITB reconstituted to include senior campus executives

– representatives from previous IT committees

removed

ITC to include senior business and IT leaders from

each control point – appointed by respective control

points

IT Governance Structure The proposed IT governance model recognizes

centers of expertise while building communication and decision structures necessary to align IT planning with campus strategic objectives. As such, the model seeks to ensure coordination of and confidence in shared, enterprise-wide IT efforts while enabling distributed innovations and operations contributing to overall IT service excellence.

IT Governance Structure

Recommendation The IT OE Committee has developed a clear, concise document to

describe its recommendation for campus IT Governance Structure

The document describes the structure to include

ITB – suggested membership

ITC – suggested membership

The relationship between ITB and ITC

Principles of ITC

Responsibilities of ITC

Structure is streamlined to facilitate efficient project movement

Structure encourages collaboration and clustering of IT organizations to achieve efficient operation

OIST to Address Infrastructure,

Policy, and Standards

Review existing OIST portfolio to determine which functions are deemed to be within the scope of Infrastructure, Policy, Standards

IT Council to assess the following OIST functions Fee for service activities

Workstation support

Server support

Equipment installation

Drupal support

Collaboration Suite

List Server Maintenance

Web Hosting

Super Computing Support

Provide Oversight for MS Office

365 Project Proposed Approach Is Multi-phase

Proof of Concept – Led by Jamie Sonsini (OIST) will conduct evaluation of Microsoft Office 365 to identify all tasks and

establish reliable estimates for all effort required to support Office 365 for current Corporate Time customers AND OIST faculty/staff email customers

will include project budget and schedule for Phase 1 and will explicitly identify incremental costs with this effort as well as existing resources

Phase I – pilot implementation will deploy Office 365 to OIST faculty/staff email customers

will deploy Office 365 calendar to campus Corporate Time users

will include project budget and schedule for campus-wide deployment and will explicitly identify incremental costs associated with extending the service as well as existing resources

IT Council will help identify the organization that will conduct Phase I and follow-on phases

Recommendations to OE

Steering Committee Request that vice chancellors communicate and

coordinate the IT Governance Structure concept within

their divisions

Take action to form the ITC

Phase I Update

Ticketing & Events

Marisela Marquez

Ticketing & Events OE Committee Co-Chair

[5 min]

Setting the Stage

Ticketing on Campus

• Bullet #1

• Bullet #2

• Bullet #3

Events on Campus

• Bullet #1

• Bullet #2

• Bullet #3

Ticketing on Campus

• Bullet #1

• Bullet #2

• Bullet #3

Events on Campus

• Bullet #1

• Bullet #2

• Bullet #3

BEFORE AFTER

Centralization thru Decentralization

Central ticketing (electronic receipts)

Public & Private Events

Mobile site

Framework for Event planning*

Venues (partial management)*

Data data everywhere

UCSB Ticketing &

Events

Go Forth & Gather

A.S. - Central repository for information,

distribution & training.

Rest of Campus - Gathers & submits

information (events, venues, ticketing info)

1) Departments

•Public events

•Private events

•Room reservations

2) Student Groups

•Concerts

•Films

•Fundraisers

3) External Groups

•Conferences

•Private Events

•Trainings

Campus Ticketing Updates

• Contract

• Term

• What do we get?

• How much is it? Who’s paying for it?

Associated Students

• Who’s In, Who’s out

• Clients – Athletics, Program Board, IV Arts, Music…?

• Box Office Locations

• Agreements

Next Steps (Timeline)

• Finalize Contract(s)

• Order Materials

• Implementation – June !, 20!2

Incorporate results from campuswide

survey

Pilot program with 3-4 departments

Tie in ticketing system to events

Begin training event planners

Next Steps

Phase I Update

Shop Services

Gene Lucas

Science & Engineering Shops

Marc Fisher

Campus Facilities Subcommittee Chair

[10 min]

OE Shop Services Committee Structure

Coordinating Committee on Budget Strategy

Gene Lucas (Co-Chair)

Henning Bohn (Co-Chair)

OE Project Leaders

Gene Lucas

David Marshall

Marc Fisher

Ron Cortez

Arts Shop Evaluation

David Marshall

Campus Facilities Shop

Evaluation

Marc Fisher

Science & Engineering

Shop Evaluation

Pierre Wiltzius

Rod Alferness

OE Project Support

Steve Dewart

Lynn McLaughlin-Hill

Christine Griffin

Facilities Advisory Committee

Campus Facilities Planning Group

Deans Pierre Wiltzius and Rod Alferness were tasked with

further study and evaluation of science and engineering shop

consolidations.

Project Aims and Outcomes • Availability of space for other uses.

• Possible attrition savings as retirements are on the

horizon for some.

• Energy costs savings with consolidations.

• Efficiencies with more centralized purchasing that would

result in savings.

• Equipment costs savings with consolidation.

• Avoidance of safety risk exposure with no one-person

shops with power equipment.

Science and Engineering Shops

6653

4032 + 1068 + 415

2872

~ 600

1082

3788 + 1406

Science and Engineering Shops

Housing and Facilities Shops

Project Aims and Outcomes The FAC will allow for input and feedback on the campus facilities

integration plan from a broad cross-section of campus stakeholders.

The CFPG will research comparable institutions, and develop one or more organizational model scenarios along with pros/cons. This group will suggest key milestones and timelines for implementing suggested models to review with the FAC and the OE Project Leadership.

As part of OE, the Facilities Advisory Committee (FAC) and the Campus

Facilities Planning Group (CFPG) have been established to examine the

campus physical plant operations to determine the financial and service

level feasibility of creating one unit that would provide maintenance,

custodial, grounds, life safety, energy and environmental services

throughout the campus.

Grounds OE Strategies To-Date

1. Redistribute acreage between departments to optimize grounds staff productivity

2. Combine Pest Control Contract, in partnership with Purchasing, to realize over 25% savings annually

3. FM and H&RS get diesel fuel at FM grounds yard

4. Both Grounds units collaborate on areas of Campus high priority areas like the Commencement Green or Campus Entrances

5. Both Grounds departments share equipment as needed.

6. Both Grounds departments have been available to assist each other with labor as needed on projects or emergencies

DRAFT

Recommended Grounds OE Strategies

①Adopt Campus Landscape & Design

Guidelines

Benefits:

a) Create a consistent and visually unified

landscape

b) Reduce repetitive injuries and unsafe

maintenance situations

c) Reduce watering

d) Reduce maintenance time

DRAFT

Recommended Grounds OE Strategies

② Operate as ‘Gaucho Grounds’, a Unified Grounds

Department with Two Divisions

How?

a) Conduct shared training programs and events

b) Hold shared BBQ/Social Events

c) Establish Monthly Managers’ Forum to share

best practices and align management and

supervisory approaches. Key Focus:

Collaborate on Major Maintenance decisions

Partner on Grounds Deferred Maintenance Projects

DRAFT

Today’s Wrap Up

Purpose:

Summarize discussion and decision points from

today

Recap our upcoming milestones

Closing remarks from OE Project Leaders