The Workday saga, so far

     You've heard about the WORKDAY snafu, right? Well, years ago, our district recognized that some of its systems—financial and HR software, etc.—needed a serious upgrade. So, after a lengthy selection process, we purchased some Workday products. (Workday is the new kid on the block.)
     According to many, some of these Workday products just aren't working out. Workday is a "moneypit" and a "disaster."
     The district has responded, it seems, by doubling down. We're throwing good money after bad, they say.
     What kinds of software are we talking about? There are two parts of our Workday purchase, and that's important to understand. Part one includes a financial program plus an HR program. SOCCCD has purchased Workday FDM [Financial Data Model] and Workday HCM [human capital management].
     The fiscal part of this bundle is new and is very buggy, they say. Reportedly, it's hell to work with. The HR part also? It's older; bugs should have been worked out.
     The other part is the student system part called Workday Student; we signed onto that almost a year after adopting the FDM/HCM bundle (December 2014). We’ve agreed to be a guinea pig in its development—for a discount. Not sure how bad Workday Student has been. (Is it fine? Let us know.)

     I’ve made an effort to assemble all the things we’ve reported or otherwise come across regarding the district’s WORKDAY adventures in recent years. Here we go.

* * *

     The first thing I’ve got on Workday is two and a half years old:

     January 27, 2014 - The district’s Board Meeting Highlights for the January meeting of the BoT reported

Agreements for a new HR/Financial Software System with Workday in the amount of $3,227,361 and Implementation partner CedarCrestone, Inc. in the amount of $3,189,501 covering a five year period.

     January 27, 2014 - Dissent the Blog's (DtB’s) report of the January 27, 2014 Board Meeting included the following:

Item 4.2: [… D Fitzsimmons has come up with the usual suspects: Bugay, Hilton, Davit K.] Business Process Analysis, Software project.
. . .
     Current software systems for HR and Finance are "old and out of date." She spells that out. Thus lots of our processes are "manual" and labor intensive. We knew we wanted to improve these processes.
     C Hilton: ... Outlined existing process. Very depressing. We came up with small, nimble process. Described ideal model that is simple, user friendly, compliant, transparent. Wanted to avoid the "COSTCO effect." …"If we automate a mess, we have an automated mess." –A motto, I guess. They “self-examined.” She started talking about "BPAs" [“Business process analysis”]. Blah, blah, blah. They're hoping the board will approve the new streamlined system and processes. She hands off to Bugay:
     D Bugay: we want a "one source system," i.e., one entry point. Current. Blah, blah, blah. We want to eliminate "shadow systems." We learned that transparency works very well. Everyone knows what's going on. A series of common themes emerged. Starts talking about DFPs (?). Turns it over to Davit.
      Davit K: seven initial responses from vendors. 3 were invited to give presentations….

Workday, Inc. is recommended as the HR/Financial Software system
CedarCrestone, Inc. Is recommended to be the implementation partner for the project.

     Why Workday? Blah blah blah. Starts saying things like "cloud based," "object oriented," "data analytics."
     Lists "technological advantages." These are mere assertions, of course. Promises made. Blah blah blah. Available on any mobile device. Davit liked that. Turns it over to Fitz:
     Fitzsimmons: expands on "mobility of this product." Talks about dashboards. User-friendly. Fitz seems genuinely excited. Implementation will take 18 months for both phases. Blah blah blah. We anticipate going live at end of fiscal year 2014... Mentions "steering committee." Consultants. Lots of college input.
     Now turn to 6.1. They advance that (approval of agreement with these firms).
     They divide the question--for the two vendors. That is approved unanimously. 

So 6.1A: approve Workday, Inc.
     Questions?
     Milchiker: it appears that the process went well. How did you get people to participate?
     Fitz: we invited folks, had much participation. They had much to say.
     Padberg: so impressed that we're finally doing this. Such an important activity, hiring.
     Jemal: I concur. Long overdue. But this is a very substantial investment. Fitz has Bob Bramucci explain.
     Bramucci: Student-centeredness. There’s an expectation of that now. This is true cloud-based software. New paradigm. Has a different data model, thus more upgradable. Object-oriented model. Talks data and codes.
     I have no idea what he's talking about.
     A "tower of Babel problem." Huh? Service-layers. Hard coding. –Whatever. What he said: it was a "nutshell," evidently. That's some nutshell.
     Jemal: current process is labor intensive. This new process is less labor intensive, presumably. New training in the district? Is cost of that factored into this?
     Fitz: will eliminate some duplicative processes. People will be doing more service-oriented tasks, not menial tasks. I can't give you a dollar amount. Yes, training of our employees is "embedded in the cost." Software is more "intuitive."
     Jemal: hope this happens smoothly. Hopes this will follow timeline presented.
     Prendergast: I didn't hear answer about "ongoing costs." Maintenance costs.
     Fitz: "data migration" .... yadda yadda. I dunno what she's saying. Looks like this is less costly than others. This was the better product in terms of price too….
     Jay: the complexity of this program, its "hugeness" is "beyond imagination." He seems to be advising that "we" take this in in bite-sized chunks. Yes, overall a simpler model. But this process is going to be big. He seems to be saying, "Don't blame me if, in the end, we don't like this" cuz its fucking big.
     Wright: want to applaud all of you for your hard work. Were all the committees on board with this? I guess so. Bugay comes up to praise Fitz bigtime. Agrees with Jay, will be "big." Describes the way updating occurs. Micro-updating occurs all the time, etc. Thanks Debra's leadership.
     Lang: what sort of due diligence have we done? Other districts using this software?
     Fitz: quite a bit. Workday is a fairly new product. Their HR [part is] much older than Financial. Had conference calls with other districts/universities: USC, et al. U of Texas, Washington system, et al. Examined contracts: we got a better deal. "We feel that this is a good product."
     Milchiker: blah, blah, blah. Keep us apprised, how this is going.
     Prendergast: let's vote on 6.1A. Unanimous, except for one abstention: Lang.
     Jay abstains on vote re 6.1B, I think.
     Poertner: [discusses] how much work has gone into this project. Special thanks to VC Fitzsimmons; an unbelievable amount of work shepherding this through. Did this while negotiating the ATEP agreement. Applause. (Looks like Fitz is riding high.)

     April 2014 - I’ve come across a Report to the SOCCCD Board of Trustees for April 28, 2014 by D Fitzsimons. It includes “Workday Implementation Project Summary Overview for the Period of 02/03/14 – 04/25/14,” which says:

Planning for the project began in early February. A detailed project plan has been developed in collaboration with SOCCCD; the implementation partner, CedarCrestone (CCI); and Workday, and is in the final stages of approval and activation using an online project planning tool.

     It includes a section entitled “Observations”:

     Even though this project represents a significant increase in workload, the SOCCCD project team is very enthusiastic, engaged, and dedicated to the success of the project. They are very knowledgeable in the current systems, both at SOCCCD and the County Payroll, which is an important factor in the success of the project. The teamwork between the SOCCCD project team and the CCI team has been highly collaborative, professional, and efficient, resulting in significant progress thus far in the project.
     The need to replace the [CedarCrestone] Engagement Manager was an unfortunate situation, but it doesn’t seem to have affected the progress of the project. CCI has addressed this issue quickly and professionally, and have provided quality interim support in that area until a replacement comes on board…. [My emphasis.]

     June 2014 - The Board Meeting Highlights for the June 23, 2014 meeting of the board included this among actions:

Agreement with eNamix for an amount not to exceed $207,960 for the term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 to provide IT testing lead services for the Workday HR/Financial systems project.

     August 2014 - In August of 2014, DtB reported the Chancellor’s Opening Session, which included this:

     Poertner: introducing presentations. "Our number 1 priority, student success," he says, utterly predictably. Student success and completion, blah blah blah. Goes through goals: blah blah blah. Discusses a new software, Workday. (This is dry, man.) Much better than what we had before, he says. (Gosh, we've heard this all before. Let's hope it's true this time.) He's really doing a sales job on Workday. Good grief, does he own stock in the company? Gosh, Georgetown uses it, too. It must be good!

     September 2014 - The district’s Board Meeting Highlights for the September 29, 2014 board meeting included this:

Agreement with JB Technology Consulting, LLC, for an amount not to exceed $117,844, for the term of October 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 to support ongoing operations and project obligations of District IT heavily involved in the implementation of the Workday HR/Financial systems.

     October 2014 - In my notes for an October 2014 Senate meeting, I wrote:

District IT also made a very long presentation regarding a new system called Workday, which will be some sort of student system.

     November 2014 - Then, in November, I reported again (as Senator) about Workday: “Workday: HR forms go live Jan.; Fiscal goes live in July.”

* * *

     November 2014 - This is probably a good place to mention the November 2014 SOCCCD "climate survey," even though the results of that survey weren’t made available until—well, I don’t know when really. I managed to promulgate an early version of the report in June of 2015, which caused quite a stir. (See Animosity.) It included written comments by survey-takers, some mentioning Workday:

     Another concern that I have is that the training for workday, required that one is out of the office for the majority of the day.... District Services feels that they are "our" customer rather than the other way around. … The colleges do not work for District Services rather District Services exist to provide support the colleges. A prime example of this would be the Workday Meeting Schedules. District services, without consultation with the IVC and SC, decided that they would plan various Workday meetings that would be held ALL DAY long the 1st week of the Fall Semester. If anyone from District Services had taken the time to look at the academic calendar they would have known that this is the WORST time EVER to expect Sr. Admins. to be away from the Division Office. Most workday meetings I've found have been set up in multi day meetings held all day long during a single workweek. This has prevented participation from various college employees and Sr. Admin. Assistants. It has also made it difficult for the colleges to receive support for various depts. within District Services as the people we need to contact are no where to be found.... There is … an overwhelming feeling at both Saddleback and IVC that the District did not take in to account our workflow or schedule when planning WORKDAY sessions. They even scheduled an entire week of workday sessions the 1st week of our Fall Semester. For the colleges this is our busiest time of year and to expect Sr. Admins. and other staff to be out of the office for long periods of time was not reasonable. ... Any process change at the District level that impacts the colleges needs to be communicated widely and in a clear and understandable way. Adding such changes to the bottom of an email blast isn't 'training', it's barely notification. We're all too busy to catch everything these days. Workday will require a ton of training. You cannot offer too much training at different time slots to accommodate people that may want to take a training more than once to be sure they got it. …[T]raining is currently lacking. With the implementation of Workday—have we identified several trainers? It is key that we have an abundance of employees who understand the colleges/district day to day operations to ensure Workday functions properly for the success of the colleges/employees and students.

* * *

     December 2014 - The Board Meeting Highlights for the December 15, 2014 meeting of the board included this action:

SOCCCD collaboration agreement with Workday, Inc. to participate in Workday's Strategic Influencer Program and assist in developing a student success system called Workday Student.

     DtB reported on that meeting. I wrote:

     [Item] 6.2 was about a proposed agreement with Workday, Inc.—the idea is that the district will collaborate with that company, thereby gaining great savings in the long run on student services STUFF—while being all cutting edge. The Techno Twins [i.e., Bramucci and Gaston] were there, and they're good speakers, and so the whole thing went down pretty easy. We're gonna partner with this Workday outfit, but there's an "escape clause," which, evidently is something like a Santa Claus, and it will save us from some kind of death spiral should the company go south. Something like that. Actually, it all sounded pretty good. The Student Trustee chimed in to represent the "digital native" POV. That sealed it, baby. I think when he said the word "mobile" all the trustees fainted, so excited were they to do something technical that the kids liked.

     December [?] 2014 - I’ve come across a district document entitled Workday Collaboration Project, which seems to be dated December, 2014. It explains that “Workday is seeking partners to assist them in collaborating in the production of the Workday Student system. … Other partners include Yale, Rochester, University of Texas, Southern New Hampshire, Broward CC, Tallahassee CC and others.” It discusses three options, including one called “Workday Strategic Influencer,” which is partnering with Workday. I guess that’s the arrangement we chose, at least for the student system.

From the document; concerning Workday Student

     February 2015 - I encountered yet another document, dated February 2, 2015, which is designed to “invite vendors to participate in the South Orange County Community District (District) procurement process for acquiring a Contract Management System. In particular, the goal is to solicit proposals for products and services that address the District’s needs. The District’s preference is for a Software as a Service (SaaS) solution.” It goes on to say

     The District is seeking vendor proposals for the procurement, implementation, and ongoing success of a Contract Management System that will also integrate into an electronic signature system. In addition, the District seeks professional services to assist in the implementation.
. . .
     Currently, the District's contract templates are stored on SharePoint in either Word or PDF format. At the most basic level, users at each of the three colleges or the District office download the contract, enter information such as vendor name, contract term, a scope of work description, and contract amount. … The District does not have any reporting, version control, standard file naming conventions, or standard storage locations for its contract. The District is implementing Workday HCM [human capital management] and FDM [Financial Data Model], and will have some capabilities through system workflow to perform final approval and encumber against approved contract. … When a contract is in negotiations, multiple parties such as the vendor, vendor’s legal counsel, the District, and District’s legal counsel, as well as the initiating department might enter or edit contract data. Microsoft Word change-tracking is used to track activity. This can be a lengthy process. Dealing with various versions and persons providing input gets complicated, time-consuming, and confusing. The District desires to make this versioning process more user-friendly, efficient, and to significantly reduce processing time to achieve the final product….

     March 2015 - In my report of the March 2015 board meeting, I noted that, during his trustee report, Jim Wright declared that he “liked” Workday.
     Oh.

    May 2015 - I found a district report, I guess, dated May 9, 2015, of the BoT’s “self-evaluation.” It mentions “Trustee Listening Sessions,” which inspired the trustees to discuss “Workday training,” among other things. Their discussions resulted also in “requests for specific reports.” (Including "What's the matter with Workday"?)

     May 2015 - In DtB’s report of the May 18, 2015 board meeting, I noted the following reports and exchanges:

Jim Gaston: [He discusses] District-Wide technology projects. … Lots of other projects listed. He highlights some of them. … Also mentions "Workday Student" system. No doubt this means something to somebody.
. . .
[A trustee has another question:] for techno folks. We have a very ambitious set of projects that we are funding. How much of this will be done by our own IT folks? How much subbed out? Etc.
Gaston: we don't expect all of these things to be done in the next year. Yadda yadda. Mentions some projects that won't require consultants: desktop upgrades, etc. (They leave the impression that they're pretty organized.)
Lang: we've been proud of the MAP (?) program, which will be integrated into Workday, etc. Is that right? Can you explain?
Gaston: mentions MAP and SHERPA(?). Yammers about this for a bit. Development teams have met with consultants, etc. We have a strong sense of ownership with MAP. Might be transitional problems with Workday. Blah blah blah. We want an integrated system. Whole system integration in 2017, then transition for two years. Workday is a longterm goal.
Lang: [re] security, proprietary stuff...Has our stuff come under attack?
Gaston: yes, any system comes under attack. We've got lots of security safeguards in place. We have vendors' help with that. We try to stay on top of security. Another advantage of going with Workday, which meets European (higher) security standards. We have some great firewalls, etc. Some of the hacks come from on campus, not just external….

     May 2015 - The district’s Board Meeting Highlights for the May 18, 2015 meeting included this action: “agreement with eNamix for an amount not to exceed $241,920, for the term of July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 for testing lead services to properly implement Workday specifications.”

     June 2015 - I’ve come across a document, dated (I think) June, 2015, which presents the Tentative Budget for 2015-6. It touches on Workday:

     The second category is enterprise resource planning (ERP) software, where we are replacing aging software for human resources and finance with Workday’s new cloud-based ERP software. In addition, SOCCCD has joined key institutions in assisting with the design of Workday’s new Student system, which will include functions from SOCCCD’s award- winning suite of student success software.
. . .
     Human Resources: Human Resources transitioned from an antiquated HRIS system to Workday, and significantly reduced the backlog for classified hiring without impacting full- time faculty hiring. HR completed over 917 new hires, an increase of almost 20% over the previous year.

     July 2015 - Based on things I had been hearing from reliable folks, a year ago (July 3, 2015), I posted something called Workday doesn’t work, which got quite a response, some of it very negative. I attempted to explain our history with Workday. Then I wrote:

     The upshot: in January of 2014—i.e., nearly a year and a half ago—the SOCCCD entered into an agreement with WORKDAY—i.e., Workday Human Resource Management, which offers consulting and software. The selection of Workday was a bit risky, for the company had little experience with educational institutions, at least on the financial side (as their name implies, they focus on HR, not finances). But they offered us a special deal plus lots of techno razzmatazz and big promises.
     “Hooray,” people said, at least for a while. (Well, some of us quietly worried that we've heard all this before: the new system is the big fix! You won't believe how intuitive and clever it is!) As you know, Workday training sessions have commenced, district-wide, producing tacit [or loud?] waves of consternation and worry. (Faculty, too, have told me that they have found the software difficult to work with. I've simply avoided it.)
     So, as we can all see, the Workday train is slowly building up a head of districtular steam. But is it the Big Fuckup Express?
. . .
     The district has been reviewing and assessing its business processes, and these, too, have been found to be wanting. (One might suppose that our venture with Workday would address that problem. I'm told that Ms Fitz, who should have known better, supposed likewise, but wrongly.)
     In the course of the review, it became clear that the district’s contracting processes in particular are ineffective and cumbersome, and, as was discovered some time after January, 2014, Workday offered no fix at all. Hence, Fitz and her crew decided to update its contract management tools and procedures—i.e., to purchase yet another system for the contract process.
. . .
     Thus it was that, in late January, 2015, the district advertised for proposals from firms to provide “Contract Management System and Related Services.” By early February, the district received four proposals. After a review of the proposals, the RFP committee recommended the software of SciQuest, Inc.
     Why SciQuest? Because it “will be able to be integrated with Workday’s HR/Financial System Software.”
     That brings us to May. Item 6.13 of the May 18 board meeting was this:

SOCCCD: Contract Management Software System Project, Approval of Agreement for Contract Management System Project, SciQuest, Inc.
Approve the contract for the Contract Management Software System with SciQuest, Inc. for a five year term effective May 19, 2015.

. . .
     According to people I’ve spoken with—and they do seem to know what they're talking about—there is a sizeable FUBAR afoot. It has a greater part and a lesser part. First and foremost, Workday [or at least part of it] is turning out to be a pig in a poke. Second, and predictably, Fitzsimons seeks to draw attention away from the fact that Workday lacks “contract management,” thus necessitating the SciQuest contract. Fitz and Co. really screwed the pooch and they don’t want the trustees to understand that.
     That’s the story, anyway. It sounds plausible. It's all very high-handed and arrogant, of course. A special kind of fucked up.
. . .

     Again, the core problem here is that, as it turns out, Workday doesn’t work. It lacks contract management; sources, including faculty and classified, tell me that even HR can't make it work. Faculty (some, anyway) hate it. Payroll, too, does not mesh with Workday and benefits are a mess. Workday can’t deal with the complexity of our district—its different employee types, different employment contracts, the variety of ways that faculty are paid and the fact that employees often are paid for less than the full year. Classified overtime is a big problem: Workday can’t handle it at all.
     The situation, I’m told, is nothing less than a disaster. A grand fubar.
     The fundamental problem is that Workday was originally designed for private industry, not educational institutions and government accounting. It is “cloud” based, but the SOCCCD is not. Workday, it seems, simply cannot be “customized” for our district. It can't be made to work.
. . .
     But there's more. According to my sources, despite Workday's utter inadequacy, the district is going forward with it, full steam ahead. In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess. All efforts to slow things down or develop workarounds are being rejected. Workday is ours and we will like it….

     —On I went like that, trusting in my sources.
     Some folks reacted angrily on Debrah F’s behalf. See Defending Fitzsimons: Comments on our post “Workday doesn't work?” [July 4, 2015].) Many seemed to think that I was hostile to Fitzsimons. Now, in fact, until then, I had always described her positively. She seems very personable. She seems nice—and, as far as I knew, she was good at her job. This whole “Workday fubar” business was the first negative thing I had heard about her. (It is important to remember that she was part of a group that recommended this software.)

     October 2015 - The Board Meeting Highlights for the October 26, 2015 board meeting included this:

Amendment to the Human Resource and Financial Software System Master Services Agreement with Workday, Inc. to include the addition of a Employee Recruitment Module, in the amount of $126,000.

     December 2015 - The Board Meeting Highlights for the December 14, 2015 board meeting included this:

Agreement with eNamix for an amount not to exceed $130,368 for the term of January 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016 to provide backfill for staff involved in the Workday implementation project.

     2015 [?] - I have encountered a document labeled SOCCCD Board of Trustees Employee Evaluation Highlights, evidently from 2015. It’s last section is “Goals for the Coming Year:”

     Provide fair compensation and working conditions part-time faculty, as well as for full-time and classified staff; complete contract negotiations; be knowledgeable about and fiscally support student success; maintain sound fiscal practices; foster growth; ensure Workday works….

     April 2016 - During the April 2016 meeting of the SOCCCD BOT (reported here), the trustees requested a Workday progress report—no doubt this was inspired by what they heard during the “listening sessions.”

     June 2016 - The report wasn’t revealed until the June meeting of the board. According to Tere’s “board meeting highlights,”

A current status report was provided on the Workday project and related software projects, following the board's request for report on the subject. Several managers and administrators provided a recap of reasoning behind the decision to move to the new enterprise resource planning system and the 3.5 year rigorous process which included contributions from all constituencies through business process analysis sessions. Moving from paper to online and toward ideal and transparent processes requires systematic change management to make a cultural shift in organizations. [My emphasis.] The group provided an overview…. Some of the challenges include getting used to new reporting and short-term increases in workload due to changes in processes. This will be examined to ensure that front line staff feel supported. ... Some items have been delayed for roll out to allow for adjustment to the current changes. The goal is to increase training and raise the comfort level during the initial two-year stabilization period. This [?] is to be expected in any major change management initiative. [Tere's notes for June meeting.]

     As you know, some DtB readers have labeled the above report/presentation an obfuscation of the facts and a dastardly attempt to shift blame onto employees. Some, however, seem to think that there's nothing especially wrong with these Workday tools, that employees are just dragging their feet, refusing to learn the new system.
     No doubt there's at least some truth in both perspectives.
     Stay tuned.

* * *

Key terms

SaaS – Software-as-a-service (on-demand software)
Cloud-based* (or “on demand”)
ERP - enterprise resource planning

*Some say that our difficulties with Workday fundamentally stem from its cloud-based nature.

* * *

Our first commenter wrote:

Anonymous said... 

     Interesting summary Roy. Here are a few facts that are missing and are being conveniently overlooked by many of your commenters. Most of the people at District Services were perfectly happy with Escape. A search was started for a new financial system in direct response to the bitter complaints about it coming from the colleges. The most comprehensive and inclusive decision making process in the history of the district took place to select a new vendor and the colleges had ample participation in it. After an exhaustive process that looked at all of the available options Workday was the clear winner and the college representatives on the steering committee voted for it. The "District" did not force this decision on the colleges. The process was started due to college concerns and the decision was the clear consensus of both colleges and District Services.
     Are there some serious issues with Workday? Yes there are and there always will be when you make this big of a change. Are the problems insurmountable? Not if we work together to solve them, but given the dysfunctional us/them mentality in this district I'm not optimistic.

—8:35 PM, July 12, 2016

Another commenter wrote:

Anonymous said... 

I do enjoy the fact that many of us have viewed faculty concerns on this blog both small and large and generally valid (and sometimes silly) but when a new software system is truly affecting the work lives of your colleagues, we are called "whiners" and complaint-niks.

I also enjoy the comments comparing the old flip phones to Escape and the new smart phones to Workday. I recall that flip phones worked and Workday is neither "smart" or intuitive or inventive.

"The most comprehensive and inclusive decision making process in the history of the district took place to select a new vendor and the colleges had ample participation in it." This is a stretch. The users today had little part in the original hiring of this vendor and it was the "cloud" capability that sold many in the room. Yippee. 

When the system was rolled out and implemented, the users today had weeks of meetings and went over the system. This is the truth. The constant "well, Workday can't do that," or "we never designed it for that," was continuous. In fact, Workday was beginning to "whine." Individuals from the original meetings were even heard to say "oh, you promised us that and now you cannot do it?"

We have a very bright & innovative group of users trying to make Workday work. Hey, and none of them use flip phones. Our frustration and our willingness to voice our frustration has brought about more change today to this system than would have been brought if the employees had chosen to be silent. 

As we talk about Workday's improvements, of course there will be some and possibly many over the years. Its been a year and they are still trickling out and it took months for us to view a report that gave us the balance in an account. 

It takes 30-40 days to do the multi step process in Workday in regards to hiring matters while in the old "flip phone" days it took four sheets of paper and 2 weeks. Beyond this, once you enter items into Workday it is difficult to find them again.

Improved software is what many of us wanted for a very long time but while it may turn into that someday, at this point the most minor of tasks take at least three times as long. While it may be easy to blame people for their inability to keep up with the wonder that is Workday, in truth, it cannot keep up with what we know it should and could do. At this time, they are rapidly creating band aid systems to wrap around the original wounds that are not going away.

There is no point in blaming anyone. This is not the issue. Many of you need to recognize though that the recommendations that came from the utter frustration of this system will actually improve this system. When you hear a "whine" it will generally rise up and become a recommendation and if heard enough, a change occurs in Workday. We have all seen it time and time again.

As you shake your heads over another post that communicates the latest concern from a faculty member, recognize that your colleagues are also dealing with a very difficult situation that is being described as mere "change" that we all need to get used to. We are fine with "change" and look forward to it. We aren't okay with a smart phone that so far is not that smart. We all have hope that this indeed will change.

—1:43 PM, July 13, 2016

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING THE ATTACHED COMMENTS, SOME OF WHICH SEEM ILLUMINATING

P.S.:

See Workday Review—A Software Evaluation (HRlab.com)
     Excerpt:

However, as Workday grows, perhaps it faces no bigger challenge than making organizations realize that their existing legacy software should be "ripped and replaced". Countless organizations that run outdated business software have gotten used to having software that is sub-par but still works, and it will take a healthy amount of convincing to change that. As such, Workday has to stay on message about how the architecture sets up organizational success; how embedded analytics increase organizational agility; and how Software-as-a-Service is rapidly becoming an industry best practice rather than the flash-in-the-pan many once thought it to be.

Monday's SOCCCD Board Meeting: $62 million for proposed Saddleback Stadium project!

They've just gotta have it

     Below: from Tere’s Board Meeting Highlights for Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees, under the heading “presentations”:

• [WORKDAY] A current status report was provided on the Workday project and related software projects, following the board's request for report on the subject. Several managers and administrators provided a recap of reasoning behind the decision to move to the new enterprise resource planning system and the 3.5 year rigorous process which included contributions from all constituencies through business process analysis sessions. Moving from paper to online and toward ideal and transparent processes requires systematic change management to make a cultural shift in organizations. [My emphasis.] The group provided an overview…. Some of the challenges include getting used to new reporting and short-term increases in workload due to changes in processes. This will be examined to ensure that front line staff feel supported. ... Some items have been delayed for roll out to allow for adjustment to the current changes. The goal is to increase training and raise the comfort level during the initial two-year stabilization period. This [?] is to be expected in any major change management initiative. 

[See Workday doesn't work? (A serious district FUBAR?) (DtB, 7-3-15)]

• [STADIUM "RENOVATION"] An overview was presented about the Saddleback College Athletics Stadium renovation and site improvements project…. SC's current stadium was built in 1969 with maximum seating of 4,500 and restrooms located outside the stadium. Concession areas, press box, sidelines and safety zones are all substandard. Maintenance of natural turf is problematic. One of the biggest issues is ADA accessibility. College athletic staff propose that a new stadium would raise awareness in the community and provide a venue for SC to host regional athletic competitions and other community events. Vice Chancellor Fitzsimons provided a recap of forecasted project costs … over the past nine years. She explained how the scope of the project has grown significantly and is currently at $62 million for the total project, with the stadium itself at $49 million. The proposed future stadium would seat 8,000 and include a nine lane track, storage, concession stands, press box, adequate restrooms and team meeting rooms, synthetic turf and energy efficient lighting. Upon evaluation of the proposals, it was determined that the cost proposals exceeded the available combined budget of $39,525,000. College and district staff presented their strategies to address the project shortfall. Funding for the stadium and the site improvements were combined for planning purposes and an RFP was issued. ... The college and district have worked collaboratively on the project planning to develop the scope and identify cost efficiencies. A difference of $22 million is needed to fully fund the project and alternative funding strategies are being recommended from SC’s Promenade income and redevelopment funds.
. . . 

• [TENTATIVE BUDGETS] – The district-wide fiscal team provided a summary report on the tentative district budget including a review of the board’s budget philosophy, assumptions used for budgeting, funding categories…. They communicated concerns about certain budget trends and suggested that tightening of budgets may need to occur. COLA was 0% this year and that was a setback as it doesn’t help to offset increasing personnel costs. IVC and SC student government groups presented an overview of their budgets and highlighted accomplishments of the student leadership groups. Both colleges reported declining bookstore and associated [student] government revenues. Both student leadership groups propose moving to an opt-out funding model for 2016-2017ASG stickers/cards to increase revenues.

Slide used during presentation

The stadium dollar figure keeps changing, growing:

     Allow me to focus on the "new stadium for SC" issue. The topic of building a new ("long-promised") stadium for SC came up during a board meeting four months ago, amid the discussion of the “2018-2019 five-year construction plan.” Of course, that very topic had come up during several previous board discussions of construction plans.
     In my report of that meeting, I wrote this:

     Jemal: athletic stadium costs. They've doubled since last year. Brandye: last year, when we came to you with requests, it was $18 million for stadium. [See May 2015. See also December, 2014.] That concerned original design by consultant. Those numbers were used last year. We moved forward, met with "criteria architect." Ideas were taken to faculty, staff. Has doubled to a $36 million project. So what we do? Process we use: if over budget, we go to college and give options. She explains how other resources became available (I had a coughing fit amidst Brandye's explanation, so I dunno). Jemal expresses consternation with this change in cost. Brandye discusses realities of working with these figures, plans, contractors, etc. Jemal: please don't come to us with "back of envelope" figures again, you dig? Everybody is in agreement. about that, I guess. Pendergast: $36 million just for stadium itself? Or field, etc. also? Brandye: Don't have exact answer. She rifles through files. The $36 million is indeed specific to the stadium. Big money, man.
     Item is moved. Unanimously approved. We're approving priorities, not costs, at this point, reminds Jemal, who is peeved. Prendergast: when this first emerged, big push from foundation. It helps to have a vision to fundraise. Brandye passes question off to Burnett. Burnett says the foundation doesn't nearly have the money to cover this extra cost. Blah blah blah. They vote: unanimous.

     For the subsequent March board meeting, I reported the following (re Board Prez Jemal’s “board report”):

     Trustee Tim Jemal: thanked everyone for awards dinner. Wunnerful, wunnerful, wunnerful. Will attend something at IVC this weekend. Wanted to mention "the stadium." [Was he talkin' to me?] I'm personally very much in support of building a fancy schmancy stadium at SC. [Did someone suggest otherwise? Was it me?] But process is important, he said. I implore the college and the district to work together on this. But fiscal issues are important as well. We need to do this in a way that makes sense. "We need to do it the right way, you all know that."

     Perhaps [?] this remark was a corrective to my suggestion that Jemal had been "peeved" about the stadium issue in February. He didn't want to get tagged as "anti-stadium."
     During the May board meeting, Saddleback College President Burnett briefly discussed his college’s big needs; he then noted that he hoped the stadium would be built.

     No doubt about it. Saddlebackians have "big new stadium" on the brain, and they've had that conditions for many years. Several trustees have been likewise afflicted.
     But the notion that there's a crying need for a big new stadium at Saddleback College (never mind that IVC doesn't even have a stadium) is rank Saddlebackcentrism. Yep, I've been carpin' about Saddlebackcentrism, especially at the district (e.g., among trustees), for a while.
     Recently, too. In my UPDATE (6-17-2016) to DtB’s saga of socccd, I wrote:

Saddleback's [relative] shrinkage amidst continued Saddlebackcentrism

• Facts is facts: as Saddleback College slowly sinks into a secondary role in the district, population-wise (they’ll deny this, of course), many of its denizens continue to imagine that that college is the center of the universe; and they are determined to construct an enormous new stadium befitting such a grand entity. Expect much Sturm und Drang over this. Some of the trustees (including current Board Prez Tim Jemal) seem prepared to just say no to the pro-stadium crowd. [Well, not “no,” I guess. He's just concerned about cost and process. He's made it clear that he says "yes," despite the new and alarming cost figures.] 

• (We at DtB have long complained about the endless Saddlebackcentrism of the district, exhibited routinely by such board members as Mr. Wright, among others (see here). One manifestation: the board’s refusal to see the wisdom of moving district headquarters off of the SC campus to a more “neutral” location. See here.)

     Don't know what I mean by "Saddlebackcentrism"? Here's the, um, definition:

Saddlebackcentrism: regarding Saddleback College as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or Irvine Valley College.

     A "for instance":

     Bill Jay: some of us went to the Foundation event recently [he reported]. People don't realize the tremendous job the Foundation does. (Annoyingly, when he refers to "the foundation," he seems to be referring to Saddleback College's Foundation.) We've won three national championships, but we have no stadium. The Foundation is working on that. We'll have a stadium. [Note the “we.”] 

–My description of Bill Jay’s board report, April 29, 2013

     Those people always talk that way. Pisses me off.

SEE ALSO

The February meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees: Saddlebackians want a new stadium and it's all that matters! (February, 2014)

April meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees: "I have no report tonight," he said

     [Please see Tere's Board Meeting Highlights.]
     6:29 - No sign of the trustees just yet. They're running late.
     While I'm waiting, I shall carp:

     LIP SERVICE. At the last meeting of the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate, Senators discussed the "lip service" college administration routinely pays to shared governance or collegial consultation. It was a dreary discussion. Over and over again, faculty are left out of the loop and things are done without consultation, and, usually, they are done badly. On that day, I complained that the college had set up a week-long program supporting "awareness" of sexual assault. None of the organizers of the event bothered to consult various faculty experts. The result? A program that looked like it was organized by the Young Republicans. It was an embarrassment.

     Yearly elections are coming up soon, and the Senate is having a hard time scraping up candidates for top Senate positions—a sign of apathy and low morale. Very little works on campus, a legacy of, in part, Prez Roquemore piss-poor administrative and mangerial hires. The college suffers scandal after scandal, fiasco after fiasco, and the trustees seem utterly oblivious, no matter how loudly some of us complain.
     --Aha! One trustee has emerged, Dave "Benedict Arnold" Lang. The meeting will be starting soon.
     [Here's the agenda.]
     6:39 - Chancellor Gary Poertner has entered the hall. He's talking with Lang.
     Besuited men are sitting all around me. One of 'em mentioned Sunday School. They keep referring to the town of Ramona. They seem to be preparing for some dreary presentation. Why dreary? Well, they're all dreary these days. Mostly anyway.
     Trustee Prendergast has appeared. --And now Board President Tim Jemal. We're still waiting for Jay, Milchiker, Whitt, and Wright.
     6:43 - Wright has arrived. --And now Marcia M. Where are Whitt and Jay?
     A silence falls over the hall as Jay and Whitt enter.
     ...here we go:

     6:45 - "We're back," says Tim Jemal. Lang reports actions taken in closed session: none taken
     Invocation by Milchiker: "we pray for strength and wisdom. Ours is an exceptional nation!" [etc]

     One request for public comments. Pedram Heidarpour(?) of student government at Saddleback: fundraiser for cancer research coming up. All money goes to cancer research. "Shavees" are involved (people who agree to be shaved bald). He explains how people can support, donate. Thank you very much.

Board reports: "could rival Broadway"!

     Terri Whitt: it's been a busy month with the Galas. I enjoyed them. The IVC Gala was "phenomenal." Wonderful setting. I appreciate all the work that went into it.
     Marcia Milchiker: events she's attended during this "busy month." 40th Anniversary Emeritus art show--work by students. IVC Foundation event at museum. Everyone donated, very proud. Attended national debate society, hosted by IVC, "always a top winner." Over 1000 participants at that event. Rousing speeches given by instructors. Board of trustees listening sessions were good. Blah blah blah. Drama depts at both college, outstanding. Broadway musical productions, "She loves me," was incredible. And something at IVC. "Could rival Broadway."
     David Lang: forgoes report
     James Wright: attended various events. Attended IVC Foundation event, slot car event, lots of fun. IVC forensic team event, with 1000 participants, lasted four days. Listening sessions at both colleges. "Enjoyed them very much." Good attendance. IVC cultural competence summit: great keynote speaker. SC athletic trainer was chosen for a big prize, Trainer of the Year. "Wonderful person, does a wonderful job." IVC Tennis, blah blah blah. Three people retiring from Saddleback College: combined teaching 101 years. Carol Bander, Nancy Evans, Patrician Evans. Real talent.
     Timothy Jemal: IVC Foundation event, big thumbs up. Thanks everyone. Emeritus Inst. celebration in Laguna Hills. Proud to be a part of that. Tennis "is near and dear to my heart." Glad that IVC team took state title. Two trustee listening sessions. Lots of input by participants. We try to listen, decide if there is approrpriate action. "We're gonna try to do that."
     Barbara Jay: attended IVC Foundation Awards dinner. Excellent. Wonderful evening. Lots of fun. Attended both listening sessions. Very educational. Would like to have more listening sessions to hear more "from faculty."
     TJ Prendergast: has in past supported cancer events. Big announcement: "I'm gonna sign up to have my head shaved." Applause.
     Student trustee Lemar Momand: please donate money to have Prendergast get his dome shaved, etc. Momand's last meeting as student trustee. Asks that trustees continue to focus on "the students." Blah blah blah.

     Chancellor Gary Poertner: "I have no report tonight."
     SC President Tod Burnett: "This is the final stretch." Annual scholarship ceremony coming up in the gym." One Book One College" (?) event. Congrats professors of the year. Mentions three, including an Emeritus instructor.
     IVC President Glenn Roquemore: also will have a set of year-ending events. Erwin Chemerinsky of UCI Law School will speak at our commencement. Tenure recognition event. (Evidently, there's a move afoot at both colleges dedicate one special event to recognizing everyone who was recognized during the year.) Mentions instructors of the year.
    Student government: blah blah blah. The "Chief Justice" of SC student government announced various events, etc. Awareness Day coming up, homelessness, domestic violence. Water fountains finalized. Will be ordering units. Reads statement on behalf of outgoing SC ASG Prez, who could not attend.  The IVC kid: "ASG still doing great things." Blah blah blah.

Board requests for reports: 
WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH WORKDAY? Workday progress report requested. Unanimous approval. Discussion item will be next month (May board meeting). (Evidently, plenty of classified carped about Workday during "listening" session.)

Consent calendar: 
Trustees identify a few to pull. They approve the rest unanimously.

5.4 - Wright: small correction.
5.7 - Lang:  Student Travel, Oxford Abroad. Concern: this item came to us without necessary sign-offs. We should follow protocol. So pulled until next meeting.
5.9 - Applauds IVC Emergency Phone/Mass notification system. Lots of money. Is this the whole cost? ($287K) Roquemore asks Davit to come up explain. Whitt: is there a continual annual fee? Davit: yes, minimal. Item approved unanimously.
5.11 - GUEST SPEAKERS. Whitt: college speakers. Curious: is there a rubric that we ask speakers to fill out? Do they offer us a sense of what they are going to share? Whitt once had a speaker go off on a topic not planned. Fitzsimmons: there is a contract that is filled out. That does not necessarily prevent people going off topic. Motion, approved unanimously.
5.2 - Jemal: re resolutions. New resolution process for the agenda. Seems to want to highlight honorees, those who are recognized. Jemal praises student trustee Momand. Insightful comments, good questions. "You're gonna go far." "Proud of you." Applause. Jemal presents a plaque and a long resolution, which essentially says, "He's terrific and we love him." Jemal forces all trustees up for big photo op for this kid. Funny. (Evidently, the district no longer takes official photos of such things. We resorted to people's phones.) "You can tell that wasn't scripted," said Jemal. They voted: unanimous. Applause.



General Action Items:

6.1 - APARTMENTS SNAFU. Lease of real property, presenters come up (FPA4Promenade, LLC and SOCCCD). Fitzsimmons starts off. Agreement re 23-acre site located on Margurite. Blah blah blah. Lessees have allowed the property (apartments) to deteriorate. Hence this renovation project. $16.5 million renovations. Builds "arboretum trail." Includes 128 beds of dedicated student housing. Shows architects' "before" and "after" pics. Blah blah blah. Fitz introduces various people (in suits) in audience. They stand. Questions?
     Jemal: board has "a lot of expectations" re progress. Discuss the benefits to the students of moving forward with this? Fitz: There will be dedicated student housing component. Motion to approve: unanimous.

6.2 - ATEP IVC First Building and associated ATEP utilities, blah blah blah. Open a public hearing. Items 6.3 and 6.4 of agenda are involved. (Environmental quality, approval of site plans.) Fitz and Brandye will answer any questions. Jemal: any questions? None. Hearing now open. No public comments. Public hearing is now closed. Any further discussion? Nope.
     It's democracy in action! Good grief.

6.3 - unanimous trustee yes vote.
6.4 - unanimous trustee yes vote.

6.5 - Public hearing re Saddleback College Exterior Lighting, etc. Energy service contract. 6.6 and 6.7 involved. GOD, THIS IS TEDIOUS. Jemal: public hearing now open. No public comments. Public meeting now closed. Any further comments? None.
6.6 - Blah blah blah unanimous yes.
6.7 - A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN. Exterior Lighting. Blah blah blah. Lang: this item gave me "a little bit of heartburn." Sole-source award made under odd circumstances. Didn't plan well. Didn't get enough vendors to respond to this. Curious about this. Fitz? Fitz sends up Brandye: our typical bid process, she says. We advertised for two weeks. Then a third week, then collected proposals. 15 bidders were initially interested. Can't explain why only one came to the table. "Only one vendor came back." She talks about how this adds up to a black mark against us. Not a good thing for us. Lang: we advertised on March 1st and 8th, knowing that prop 39 funds would end. Shouldn't we have taken steps to get others involved? Brandye: she offers reasonable answer, though I didn't get it. Wright: asks similar question. Brandye manages to answer acceptably. Motion to move item: unanimus approval.

6.8 - EXPANDING CAL GRANTS, MAYBE. Supporting Legislation re Cal Grants. Tere Flugeman presents: resolution supporting two assembly bills. Reform the Cal Grant program. Currently, grants don't provide for books and other costs. These bills would raise the max award, from $1,500 to $3000. Also eligibility age limit raised. Would raise number of awards. Etc.
Wright: refers to attached table, costs. Cost at community colleges "much larger." Tere explains the lack of grant aid to CC students. "An interesting chart," adds Wright.
Marcia Milchiker: legis tasks force voted approval of these. Tere: also the Governor, etc. Jemal: what's the prognosis for these bills? Tere: probably not very good. Projected costs $400 million. Jemal jokes about asking the UC and State U system to yield to CCs some of that grant money. Laughter. Unanimous vote of approval.

6.9 - Saddleback College, Science Building project. Unanimous yes.

6.10 - Board Policy revision (for review and study). Traffic and parking regs. Credit by examination. Unanimous approval (for review and study).

6.11 - Board Policy revisions. Employee of relatives, Department Chair, etc. Unanimous approval (of revised board policies).

6.12 - Academic personnel actions. No changes. Wright: comment. (Correction, I guess.) Unanimous approval.

6.13 - Classified personnel actions. No changes. Unanimous approval.

6.14 - Full time faculty hiring amendments. Faculty hiring lists. Want to stay on top of recruitment. Unanimous approval.

6.15 - Sabbatical projects. Modification of one project. Prendergast: he's just got a joke, didn't quite catch it. Something about leaving off Notre Dame from list of "top teams." Har har. Unanimous approval.

REPORTS:

7.1 - IVC professor of the year. No comments
7.2 - IVC and SC speakers.
7.3 - basic aid
7.4 - monthly financial status report.
7.5 - trust fund
7.6 - Quarterly something
7.7 - THOSE PESKY CONTRACTORS. facilities plan, blah Wright: what's the status of the Fine Arts something. Brandye: $5.3 million over three months. Need contractor to be "on point." Contractor has not performed yet. We're having more meetings, more pressure. Haven't decided to pull the plug yet. IVC Liberal Arts contractor: has no respect for the schedule. Two steps forward, one step back. Lots of delays. Scheduled to be completed at end of May. We don't believe that date. Perhaps early July. It's starting to endanger ability to start there in Fall.

Reports from groups:

I'm outa here. (7:55 p.m.)