Total Canal Food ServiceEvolução Total Canal Food ServiceEvolução.
Domain 4 Thursday, October 12 8:15 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Canal A&B
description
Transcript of Domain 4 Thursday, October 12 8:15 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Canal A&B
1
Domain 4Thursday, October 128:15 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Canal A&B
2
Administrative Systems as Instantiations of University Policy
David Todd
Vice Provost and CIO
University of San Diego
Mark Sheehan
Executive Director of Information Services and
University CIO
Montana State University – Bozeman
3
Or: Information Systems as Administration’s 2x4’s
4
• “I’m sorry, sir, but I’ll have to re-enter your order to give you that discount”
• “The computer won’t let me do that for you …”
• “They spent $20M for a new ERP system and it won’t handle open PO’s”
Common Tales of Woe
5
• Offices take advantage of implementations of new systems to close loopholes (accounting, advising)
• Intentional on the part of the implementing office; undesirable or at least unexpected from the perspective of the client
Information Systems as Manifestation of Policy
6
ERP Ideals vs. RealityIdeal Reality
University has an overarching strategic plan
We make it up as we go
Clients work directly with each other on issues
Clients talk to IT and leave it to us to resolve
University and functional office policies are well established and widely communicated
Clients are surprised to find policies and procedures have been changed in the new ERP
7
• Ten colleges & universities
• Independent operation
• State Commissioner of Higher Education
• State Board of Regents (appointed by Governor)
Montana Higher Education -- 1993
8
• Two universities, each with four campuses
• Two campuses with consolidated technical schools
• Mandate to operate administratively as two universities, with two presidents but individual staffs
Montana Higher Education -- 1995
9
The Montana University System
Bozeman
COT Great Falls
Billings &Billings COT
Northern
Missoula & Missoula COT
Butte
Western
Helena COT
Montana State University
University of Montana
10
The Montana University System
Bozeman
COT Great Falls
Billings &Billings COT
Northern
Missoula & Missoula COT
Butte
Western
Helena COT
Montana State University
University of Montana
(Washington, DC to Nashville, TN)
Circa 650 Miles
11
• MSU—Bozeman faced substantial Y2K problems because of ancillary systems
• Moderate problems on other campuses
• With a major investment looming, administration took the opportunity to build a single administrative system
Y2K Dividend
12
• There were two: Banner, Peoplesoft
• Chose Banner in Nov, 1997
• Began with kickoff in February, 1998
• Scheduled to complete by Dec, 1999; effectively completed August, 1999
• Student Records, Fin Aid, Finance, HR systems implemented
Choices, Choices but …
13
• Single central database for production
• Central web servers (fast access to database)
• Distributed forms servers
• Use state network (mostly T1’s)
• Single IVR system serving all campuses
Implementation
14
• Clear mandate
• Studied intervention
• Governance structure
• Communication
• Focus
• Superb help from our friends
How We Did It
15
• At the outset, this was mandated by the President (supported by CoHE) to be a four-campus implementation
• BPR process preceded Banner implementation – again, four campus – and set the expectation that we would implement together
Mandate
16
• CoHE decided general ledger structure from two alternatives
• CoHE consultant motivated adoption of NCHEMS database for data definition standards
Studied Intervention
17
• The Steering Committee was responsible for policy & general oversight; composed of high-level administrators representing each campus & a range of business functions
• Project Teams: responsible for implementing specific business modules, again with representation across campuses
Governance
18
• Finance
• Financial Aid
• Human Resources
• Student Systems
• Information Technology
Project Teams
19
• Use the technologies
• Video conferencing
• Phone conferencing
• NetMeeting
• Whiteboard
• Web site
• Newsletter – tailored to campuses
Communicate
20
• Y2K loomed large over the horizon
• State CoHE and BoR were watching
• (State DoA was also interested)
Maintaining Our Focus
21
• Chart of Accounts dictated by state
• HR nominally common
• Used UM definitions for people & student data standards when possible
• Used NCHEMS database as reference and sanity check
• “No” customizations of core code – enforced by Steering Committee
Standards
22
• Student system “cloning”
• Did not implement a single course-numbering system
• Processing rules vary by campus
• BUT: data definitions are consistent across campuses
• Budgeting varies by campus
Flexibilities in Our Approach
23
• Don’t believe anyone about the usefulness of canned reports
• Ensure release time for team leaders
• Budget for massive overtime
• Include a separate Student Accounts team
• Insist on using one reporting tool (Access & Crystal Reports currently in use)
What We’d Do Differently
24
• Single location for any information about an individual in the MSU system
• Common Chart of Accounts, roll-up by campus & university
• Standard data definitions that facilitate institutional research across the University
Did It Work? Yes!
25
• Individual course numbering systems
• Differing approaches to advising, student billing, etc.
• Still two payroll cycles in use and multiple offices
• We were overly ambitious
• BUT WE DID MEET MAJOR GOALS OF THE BOR & COHE
Did It Work? No!
26
• CoHE-sponsored project
• Extracts from Banner operations data into Oracle data warehouse for each university
• Roll-up to data warehouse for CoHE
• Effectively use the standards established as four-campus implementation effort
Data Warehouse Project
27
• The dedicated staff of Montana State University – wouldn’t have gotten done in any other state
• Linda Wooden
• SCT
• University of Montana
• Commissioner of Higher Education
Credits
28
Questions?