Minutes - October 23, 2006
Steering Committee
October 23, 2006
By Polycom
Present: Allen Berger, Tracy Bigney, Dick Campbell, Ralph Caruso, Peggy Crawford, Tracy Elliott, John Grover, Jon Henry, Dick Kimball, Eddie Meisner, Cindy Mitchell, John Murphy, Rosa Redonnett, Bill Wells, Joanne Yestramski, Darren-Michael Yocum.
Governance Changes: Any suggested changes to the governance documents (either personnel or structure) should be sent to Ralph by the end of the next week.
Updates and Information Exchange:
a. IDP Sessions. Darren-Michael briefly reviewed the schedules of the IDP teams. The Student Records team is finalizing the master catalog—current and historical course data—and historical class data. A challenge is ensuring that team members actually are able to get IDP work done on their “off” weeks when they are on their campuses; it’s hard for the team to carve out the time. Still, the progress is good.
Academic Advisement is also making good progress. Darren-Michael noted the team’s positive attitude, the specific questions they bring to IDP sessions, and the ease with which the members are picking up on their task to set up three main tables.
Student Financials is doing well and working hard. The team has completed discussion about cashiering with lots of questions about TouchNet and how it will fit in. Darren-Michael said the hope is to use PeopleSoft cashiering to process student and corporate payments, and TouchNet for credit cards.
Financial Aid is just now starting, and working through initial startup adjustments. The team has met with Student Financials to discuss payment rules.
Darren-Michael referred to the “Implementation Milestones” (handout) that he is trying to incorporate into the project plan. IDP team members have been asked to define what implementation milestones apply to their institutions. Quality assurance controls in the form of a monthly status report and a monthly project risk assessment are being established to help project leaders address key questions and to help track milestones and determine whether any milestones might be at risk as the process moves forward.
Training and testing are being incorporated into the plan early; this will help to identify what kind of training will be needed for which end-users. Some training will be done in IDP sessions.
Peggy observed that we are moving into a whole new era with PeopleSoft: data and functions are so interdependent and integrated. It is a real paradigm shift.
b. Document Imaging. Ralph referred to a report given to the Sponsors last week (distributed). He will serve as executive sponsor for document imaging, which has very broad applicability and the potential for savings to accrue to departments. He will meet with campus groups and then work with the Steering Committee to establish priorities.
John Grover noted that the logical first office to make use of ImageNow was Financial Aid at USM, where there is already experience with document imaging. Design of workflow—the real value of document imaging—is beginning this fall. Some campuses are planning to be trained on ImageNow after workflow is in place. Jon Henry said that setting up workflow is in many ways another IDP, in that users have to help define the workflow that will be implemented.
Getting admissions up and running with doc imaging has taken more time than anticipated.
Joanne asked how campuses should proceed if they wish to submit requests for use of document imaging in offices other than admissions and financial aid. Ralph suggested that the impact and priority on the campus, and the expected return, would be important information to have. Although an APL for creating a detailed business case for doc imaging is being worked out, Ralph said it’s possible that a summary might be sufficient.
John Murphy wondered why we are preparing for upgrades, specifically in document imaging, when we haven’t fully deployed the product. John G. explained that the upgrade actually becomes a bigger problem once everyone is deployed, resulting in more work for the campus. The doc imaging upgrade (to Sunflower) will provide needed improvements to security, so much so that the value added will be worth the “hit” of doing the upgrade.
John G. also said that the ITS governance body will help to guide plans for archiving old records. Specific needs on campuses will be considered. A common format for archiving will be determined.
c. Overall Center Operations. Jon shared the powerpoint that was prepared by the Shared Processing Center for the UMS Operational Audit, The ImageNow system is performing very well, with credit to Kim Yerxa and the Shared Processing Center staff. Currently, the staff is busy with application processing (transcripts, etc.). Loan Processing has positions to fill due to resignation.
Rosa noted that there seems to be a substantial increase in processing time just putting in inquiries, so USM appreciates that the SPC is there to deal with applications.
Jon will be working with Admissions Directors to find the delicate balance needed between entering application information locally and sending the application to the Center for data entry. Generally speaking, any app that is received locally prior to the beginning of a semester should immediately be routed to the Center. If campuses enter the data, the efficiency gains of the SPC will be negated, particularly if more than about 5% of apps are entered locally.
Allen asked that the Steering Committee be informed of any difficulty reaching a consensus.
UMS Information Technology Services: Ralph distributed the report on ITS prepared for the Operational Audi and shared with the IT policy and planning committee. He called attention to the IT infrastructure terms chart. ITS is developing a budgeting process based on cost per services provided, rather than by straight line item. He emphasized that very little is done by ITS that benefits only ITS; the unit provides services to all of the campuses and beyond.
Other:
Schedule:
HR: Cindy reported that February 20, 2007 is the target for the HR upgrade to 8.9, and said this is a much improved version that will add value. Parallel testing occurred last week, the team identified issues, and the technical team addressed them. All appears in good shape leading to February.
Financials: The Financials upgrade to 8.9 is planned for close to end of the fiscal year. No date has been set for Phase II Financials. Cindy said the team is looking at 2009, but the reality is that the student implementation is taking all available resources.
Development: Sungard Advance for Development: November 2007 is the target date for membership and gift.
TouchNet: Bill Elsemore has been identified as project manager for this rollout, and representatives from the campuses have met. Bill has also met with Student Financials people. Training is set for November 17-18 with a go-live date (meaning ready in a production environment) in December. Cindy is still negotiating with Sequoia to find a solution for bookstores.
Budget: Budget: Cindy noted that the initial budget for the Oracle/PeopleSoft implementation project was $10 million, raised to $13 million. Now she is charged with staying under $18 million. Expenses for student administration have been trimmed by $500,000. An internal project manager will be used for the Financials upgrade (no consultant).
No money has yet been allocated for a reporting warehouse, but within the next six months a business case should be developed for this.
Ralph emphasized that senior management in the System has many priorities to consider and must maintain appropriate balance. He also noted that there has been inadequate funding across UMS to keep pace with the technology needs of a modern organization.
***
Minutes of these meetings are public and are posted to the (Project Enterprise) website at (http://www.maine.edu/system/mainestreet/sponsors_steering_minutes.php).
Next meeting: Friday, December 1.
The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Eddie Meisner, Recorder