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?