In fall 2022, the Chief Human Resources Officers from across CU jointly decided to reset the Time & Labor project focus to performing a deeper current state assessment of time keeping and leave request business processes across CU.
Since that time, considerable progress has been made including establishing the agreed-upon charter, methodology and timeline for the current state phase. The project core team has identified subject matter experts at each campus and has been holding working sessions across CU.
Through these working sessions, we are learning important details about current practices for timekeeping and leave requests. This includes identifying where we have the same or similar practices, and where practices differ and why. We’re also identifying all tools used to perform these business processes outside of MyLeave. The analysis of the current state findings will help to drive requirements and decisions as the project moves forward.
Keep an eye out for future communications concerning the project from your campus HR office and Employee Services. Reach out to the project team at TimeandLabor@cu.edu with any questions, comments or concerns.
FAQ
What is the timeline for Phase 1 - Current State Analysis
Each campus has its own timeline reflecting the size, complexity and resource availability for completing the current state working sessions and analysis. The project began with a focus on Boulder and System, so their current state business processes have already been completed.
- Anschutz Medical Campus Current State sessions: March 8, 2023 - Sept. 29, 2023
- Boulder Campus Current State sessions: Feb. 17, 2023 - April 28, 2023
- Colorado Springs Campus Current State sessions: Nov. 8, 2022 - July 5, 2023
- Denver Campus Current State sessions: March 2, 2023 - June 30, 2023
- System Campus Current State sessions: Feb. 17, 2023 - April 28, 2023
What happens after Phase 1 - Current State Analysis?
With the conclusion of Phase 1 in October 2023, the project will move into Phase 2 – Decision Making where key decisions will be made that will inform our future state solution technology tools, scope and design. Following the key decisions, the project will move into implementation planning. The timelines for future phases have not been established yet.
How will project decisions be made?
Informed by the current state findings and analysis, recommendations will be developed to address opportunities and pain points. A tiered decision model has been developed to ensure the project aligns with CU's strategic needs and appropriately supports operational processes for time entry and leave requests. The decision model will also consider effects to upstream and downstream processes.
Please see below for a description of the decision tiers:
| Tier | Description | Level of Impact | Decision Maker |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 4 | Tier 4 decisions are strategic in nature and require the highest level of decision authority. | Very High Impact | Vice Chancellor Group: Chief Financial Officers and Chief Operating Officers from each campus |
| Tier 3 | Tier 3 decisions are also tactical in nature, but are expected to have a high level of impact. Examples include when there are disparate practices across campuses that have been determined to require standardization, policy changes or situations with technology tool changes. | High Impact | Project Steering Committee: Chief Human Resources Officers and Chief Information Officers from each campus |
| Tier 2 | Tier 2 decisions are tactical and may fundamentally change how an existing process works or how the roles/responsibilities involved perform the process. | Moderate Impact | Campus HR Leads: HR Directors/AVCs from each campus |
| Tier 1 | Tier 1 decisions are expected to be operational in nature with minimal impacts to how people perform their jobs (e.g., process improvements to streamline how work is executed, improve quality, and/or timeliness. | Low Impact | Employee Services Department |
Who is involved in the current phase of work?
The people listed below have been identified for specific project roles to support the project as key resources. Each campus has identified subject matter experts (SMES) and has been holding working sessions across CU to learn important details about current details for timekeeping and leave requests. (Visit the Time & Labor IT Governance page for a list of people who represent each campus for decision making. This multi-institutional team includes key leaders from each campus and System.)
| Campus | Project Role | Name |
|---|---|---|
| Anschutz | CHRO CIO T&L HR Lead Project Manager Business Analysts Organizational Change Manager |
Adrienne Howarth-Moore Christopher Smith/Laura Morris Florie Montoya Lindsay Paterson Bethany Nieman, Sze Pui Shum, Justin Loiselle Kelly Hanson |
| Boulder | CHRO CIO T&L HR Lead Project Manager Business Analyst Organizational Change Managers |
Robyn Fergus Marin Stanek Kenny Nelson Amy Fallon Lindsay Jenkins Natan Tuchman, Kenny Nelson, Lindsay Jenkins |
| Colorado Springs | CHRO CIO T&L HR Lead Project Manager Business Analyst Organizational Change Manager |
Angela Bender Harper Johnson Jerilyn Taylor Chuck Carter Nancy Mars Jerilyn Taylor |
| Denver | CHRO CIO T&L HR Lead Project Manager Business Analyst Organizational Change Manager |
teri engelke Matthew McCarville teri engelke Desiree Shroyer Martha Kohlhagen Brittney Prior |
| System | CHRO CIO T&L HR Lead Program Manager Program Manager, Employee Services Business Analysts Organizational Change Manager Communications Lead |
Felicity O'Herron/Lisa Landis Scott Munson Sharon Bishop (Employee Services), Bob Sudo (UIS) Jacqueline Averett Tricia Strating Mike Wiles, Diana Wilstermann, Marlene Strickland Lara Ackerman RyAnne Scott |
Where should I go if I have questions?
Please send questions about the Time & Labor project to TimeandLabor@cu.edu, and a project team member will respond to you.