Minutes -
January 30, 2006
Present: Allen Berger, Tracy Bigney, Jim Breece, Dick Campbell, Tracy Elliott, Frank Gerry, John Grover, Tom Hopkins, Dana Humphrey, Sue Hunter, Dick Kimball, Jan Loomis, Cindy Mitchell, John Murphy, Sharon Nadeau, Laurie Pruett, Rosa Redonnett, Janet Waldron, Bill Wells, Joanne Yestramski, Eddie Meisner--Recorder.
1. THESIS Presentation to Board of Trustees: Summary and Questions
The Powerpoint presentation that had been distributed with the meeting agenda was reviewed. John Diamond’s goddaughter spoke eloquently about student services at the University of Delaware. Because self-service is so efficient, many students have no need to visit the campus one-stop. The presentation clearly demonstrated where we lag and what the industry standards are today. The Board now has a clear sense of where we’re headed and their expectation is that we will move ahead.
Tracy B. noted that the presentation is excellent; we need to ensure that many more people understand this concept at a “gut level.” Is there a way to get more mileage from this? It was decided that Joanne will provide the audiostream from the student’s discussion with the Chancellor to Jan, who will embed the audio into a Powerpoint slide. Rosa and Allen (and the Chancellor) will generate suggested notes to accompany the original slides. Laurie will work with Jan to send the enhanced Powerpoint presentation to all members of the Sponsors and Steering Committee, who will be expected to disseminate or otherwise see that this material is presented to whatever audiences are appropriate at the campuses.
2. Update on Document Management and Recruitment/Admissions
Recruitment/Admissions with Cindy Mitchell: Cindy said that the business process review for Recruitment & Admissions is complete; processes are nearly written and ready to hand off to the training team. Security is being designed. Focus groups for Admissions will be organized. The training team hopes to do very little train-the-trainer; by offering training centrally the team can better guarantee its quality. The campus training coordinators will assist with logistics and communication. Design of the web application will be done in February.
Document Management with John Grover: USM was targeted for the first deployment of Imagenow software primarily because the campus already had years of experience scanning documents. The new software is being accepted well; today documents will be scanned into Imagenow, and conversion of old documents is beginning. John is now working with other campus financial aid offices on document imaging, and interest in the technology is high. The first step is acquiring local hardware and a bit of training. Costs for a scanning station run about $4,000 to $7,000.
3. Center Planning
a. Preliminary work on business case: Allen reported that work on the THESIS business case is ongoing. Jan walked the group through a Powerpoint presentation that described the timeline and the back-office MVPs that have been identified (data entry, imaging and indexing, document disposition for admissions, loan management and collection, document management/archiving services). Phase 2 MVPs include immunization, financial aid documents, student account receivables, mailhouse/document fulfillment, self-service and portal help desk, enrollment/degree verification, University College academic logistics, and degree audit. All will be in place as soon as feasible.
The organization/staffing diagram elicited concerns about what it will mean for campuses and resource allocation, in the short and long terms, the impact on staff, and interrelationships of jobs with work functions. What is the transition planning that will need to be done with employees? Campus management will need assurance that holes are not left in specific job areas. What about startup costs? Joanne indicated that there should be no significant effect on campus budgets this fiscal year.
Jan noted that next steps include an admissions directors summit (more information follows); the financial business case for presidents (to be presented on February 9, it is hoped); the impact on campuses; more work on the project charter; communication to the wider UMS community as plans solidify; workflow management issues; and detailed job descriptions and classifications.
b. Questions about admissions data collection: Alison Cox and Jon Henry joined the group to discuss some data elements in Admissions and Campus Community that campuses will use differently (e.g. parent information on students of traditional/non-traditional age; accommodation type; external education details and organization details).
Following discussion about a decision-making process for these questions, it was decided that the issues would appropriately be discussed at the planned admissions directors summit, and a plan of action be submitted to the Sponsors and Steering Committee’s next meeting on February 27. Alison and Jon will prepare some recommendations. Cindy noted that at six months from go-live, decisions may not be made in a timely fashion, and suggested that less high-priority data could be captured at a later time.
c. Preliminary plans for “Admissions Summit:” Admissions Directors have not been fully involved in planning for the next software implementation, which will greatly affect how they do business. A summit is being planned for mid-February at which information can be shared about THESIS, the one-stop centers, back-office center, document management, PeopleSoft implementations, web application, and other items that will directly affect their work.
Steering Committee members should talk with their Admissions Directors and alert them to this important event. Admissions Directors will receive an email invitation from Joanne and Elsa (with copy to Steering and Sponsors Committee).
4. PeopleSoft Advising timeline—recommendation from some of the registrars
Some registrars have recommended that the advisement module (a tool for degree audit; not a faculty-student relationship) should be implemented in parallel with student records. This agrees with advice of our consultants. Campuses should name an advising person (a director of advising or person who will build degree audit rules) to participate in discussions about when to start.
Once available in PeopleSoft, this advisement tool can be used by each campus at its own pace. It uses Student Records information but is essentially a report that can be built and launched in phases. The critical piece now is ensuring that Student Records is set up to work with Advisement. Allen asked that Alison and Cindy prepare a document estimating labor requirements to accomplish this.
5. Change management and one-stops
Campus one-stop planning coordinators will be meeting with the Sponsors later this week. Human Resources staff need to work together with one-stop planners.
6. Future meetings: times and places
Monday, February 27, 1-4 p.m. in-person in Bangor.
Thursday, March 23
Thursday, April 20
Tuesday, May 23
Allen suggested alternating Polycom and in-person meetings.
Other
Joanne and Cindy said there had been some problems with some (a few hundred) 1099 forms sent to vendors. This is a one-time glitch resulting from the change to PeopleSoft. A letter from the Procurement Department will be sent to the vendors who received erroneous forms, and a new run will be done to get the corrected information out. Chief Financial Officers and accounts payable departments will be notified.
The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Eddie Meisner, Recorder