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