Sam Casey & Carla Rawsthorne On behalf of the Training Special Interest Group.

Why train on Banner?Why train on Banner?

Session Rules of Etiquette

• Please turn off your mobile phone • If you must leave the session early,

please do so as discreetly as possible

• Please avoid side conversation during the session

• Thank you for your co-operation

What this session will cover

1. What is Banner training?

2. Why do we need it?

3. Examples of different approaches• Outline• Advantages• Disadvantages

4. Future plans

5. Time for open questions

A Step Back in Time

• Your institution invested a large sum of money to purchase Banner.

• Why?– Single source for student information– Effective data management– Better Management Reporting

• Implementers trained (high cost) to ensure setup is correct.

The Present Day

• Common theme at the Banner training special interest group– Initial funding for training was there to implement

– Lack of funding to provide continuous training

– Training is seen as a luxury

– Only a small number of institutions have dedicated training resource

– Those without dedicated resource cannot train all users of the system – this can lead to data quality issues

– Data quality issues

– Support costs

NHS comment on IT system implementation

‘The lack of in house IT expertise and lack of user training and know how have also been pinpointed along with under funding of training.’ (National Audit Office, 1991)

Information Management, Lesley Wilcocks, Chapman & Hall 1993

What is Banner Training?

• Not as straightforward as it sounds• Means different things in different institutions• Expensive luxury or essential?• Links to permissions, data quality…etc

Why do we need to train on Banner?

• In September HESA’s ‘Making your data work for you’ report it stated that in order to be successful ‘data personnel’ amongst other things:

‘…should receive adequate and ongoing training in the processes and tools to effectively perform their role’. (2008:31)

• In a recent report from the Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development (CIPD) titled ‘How do people learn IT systems’ it was suggested:

‘Ongoing training or training for new joiners who arrive after the system is introduced is recognised as a widely neglected area …..supported hands on practice’ was seen as preferable by learners.’ (2008:3)

• Today’s case studies will illustrate some current approaches to Banner training.

=

= +

+

x

An untrained, unsupported user can lead to confusion and poor data quality/management information

A trained and supported user can provide good data quality and therefore better management information

Case Study: Nottingham Trent &Royal Holloway

• Outline– One trainer based centrally in the Registry with one

administrative support.  – No access given without training. – Recent addition on training administrative support

• Advantages– Access is controlled, so only trained users can use the

system.– The training experience is consistent because it is from one

source.– Adding administrative support to the training role improves

productivity.  If the trainer completes their own admin, there is not enough time to enhance documentation and improve services. 

• Disadvantages– Only one trainer makes it very difficult to do anything other than

essential training. – The departments who we train have higher training level expectations

than we can deliver. – Time to research different approaches to training is limited as there isn't

time to develop in other areas. – Project work puts intense pressure on the trainer as learning new areas

and expanding the training portfolio is last minute and means the day to day workload is constantly expanding.

• Further observation– We could do with additional training resource to move things forward

faster.  The University has a lot of Banner related projects running, which all demand training resource.  At present, we are just managing but the projects pull away from the day to day training. 

– We are also hoping that by introducing e-learning in some areas this will also assist with productivity, but this still requires a trainer’s time to develop and maintain online material.

Case Study: Nottingham Trent &Royal Holloway

Case Study: Salford

• Outline– Holistic approach to staff skills development in student information

area. Did you see our other presentation?“Only learners can learn: they may be made to sit in the training room or in front of a screen but they cannot be made to learn – an effective strategy to promote learning must consider the wider issues of management, motivation and preparedness.” (CIPD:2008)

– Training strongly linked to permissions and administered in SAP to both monitor and report from.

– Different learning methods employed – e-learning, classroom, workshops, focus groups.

– Training plans for all new starters.– We don’t claim to be experts in all areas of Banner – we facilitate

learning.– You can’t be there all of the time – involvement from managers is a

two way process and takes time to develop.– Thinking about how Super Users may enhance what we currently

offer is our next move – through SIG.– Website resources – manuals, helpsheets, e-learning etc

Case Study: Salford

• Advantages– Reduced helpdesk calls - now 1 fte, was 5 fte in 2004– Raised staff confidence - shown through feedback (formal and

informal)– Better data quality – for those that ‘buy in’ – Facilitates change – essential with Banner and associated systems– People begin to see beyond ‘training’ to the wider issue of staff skills

in student data – the “WHY”

• Disadvantages– Takes time and pain to develop, depending on your starting point– Resource can be viewed as a luxury, which can be a barrier– This is ongoing work, not a switch that can be flicked – a three year

plan would get you started

Salford

Case Study: Greenwich

• Outline– No dedicated trainer.– Two staff that have been on the basic “Train the Trainer”

course.– Based in the Banner Functional Team, Office of Student

Affairs. – Both are System Developers and Analysts - do not get much

time for training development and delivery. – 20% of a role is spent on training, i.e. 0.2 FTE

– 5% of two staff mentioned– 2 additional staff spend 2.5% on documentation– 1 additional member of staff spends 5% making video

training sessions– Access is given without training due to resource restraints– Additional admin support provided – recent change– Plans to develop CBT via WebCT is planned

Case Study: Greenwich

• Advantages– No benefits at all.– Feedback from BannerWeb training is very positive with frequent

requests for more training courses.

• Disadvantages– Staff are not trained in how to use the system from a central training

team or the Banner Functional Team.– Only 0.2 FTE of a trainer makes it very difficult to do anything other

than extremely essential training i.e. for major new developments. – Training is inconsistent: For the past 9 years Schools, Departments

and Offices are supposed do their own in house cascade training to any new staff.

– No time to research different approaches to training and to develop any new training content or courses.

– No spare time for training - Project/maintenance work takes priority.– The University Schools, Departments and Offices want more

training, but we cannot deliver due to lack of resource.

Case Study: Greenwich

• Further observations– Standard evaluation forms used after training sessions to

capture users’ views - feedback is very positive.– The recent addition of administrative support has vastly

improved productivity.– Planning to introduce 3 WebCT (CBT - e-learning) training

courses in the following areas hopefully by March 2009: – General Student Overview – Interpreting Programme & Course Information– BannerWeb

– E-Learning requires a lot of time to develop and maintain. But it is expected to assist with the training of new staff and training productivity.

Case Study: Leeds• Outline

– 1 full-time Corporate Systems Trainer & 1 (35 hours) Banner Training and Documentation Officer.

– The work is mainly for Banner training, although we will be taking on timetabling training from next year as well.

– Training split into two areas: new projects and ‘business as usual’ training.– Support for new projects and enhancements to Banner (10 new projects in

the last 10 months). – Other work includes: documentation, user support, project meetings, Super

User meetings and admin etc. Receive some admin support on bookings. – Some coaching/simple training is provided by Super Users. – Navigation training is a prerequisite for all other Banner courses - no access

is given to users unless they are trained on Navigation and at least one other course.

• Advantages– Planned training scheduled advertised in advance to allow users to plan and

book at their convenience & reduces fire fighting.– Controlled access for users, hence assurance of data quality. – Up-to-date documentation available on line for all users.– More involvement in project work means that training resource is considered

from the beginning of any project and not left to last minute. – We can plan our work load well in advance (one year).

Case Study: Leeds

• Disadvantages– Despite the advanced organisation of courses, some times we need

to put 1-2-1 sessions for urgent cases, which can cause extra pressure.

– New projects take considerable time; involved in all new project meetings to discuss training requirements, learn new areas, produce documentations, organise and deliver training to large number of users, and to provide after go-live support if necessary.

• Further observations– We have standard evaluation forms for all training sessions to

capture users views and feedback - this is very positive in most cases.

– A Banner User Forum is available for Banner users to feedback and raise any issues for discussions, although many staff subscribed but it has not been used effectively as we hoped.

– Other Corporate Systems Trainers ask for advice on some of our practices especially regarding Super User’s and project work, this indicates that we are a good example to follow.

– We would like to look at CBT/e-learning but lack time.

Case Study: Leeds Met

• Outline– We have two trainers responsible for all training delivery and

development for both admin and academic staff. – The trainers also currently cover the system support Help

Desk for Banner – In the near future support will also be provided for the

reporting system, this will include writing training, delivering training and ongoing Help Desk support.

• Advantages– Access is controlled by the training team, so only trained

users can access the system.– The training experience is consistent but not ideal and we

have plans to improve and make changes to the training once we have more time.

Case Study: Leeds Met

• Disadvantages– Only having two members of staff to cover all these areas makes it very

difficult to do anything other than essential training. – Because only essential training is delivered, we spend a great deal of

time supporting users who get things wrong. – In the past 10 months, only the basic training session has been updated

– this is due to time constraints.– The team have lots of ideas about how they would like to move the

training forward and hopefully reduce the need for support, but are finding it difficult to do so with the limited staff resource.

– All of this is leading to frustration and occasionally a lack of enthusiasm.

• Further observations– Personal observations and feedback is received from the training

session. – Our Banner Support Team should consist of four members of staff (two

currently). Full complement of staff needed to move training forward.– E-learning is of interest but need to find time develop this.

Case Study: Ulster• Outline

– Two members of staff responsible for training; Faculty, School, Exams and Registry users.

– No fulltime member of staff allocated to training alone - training staff covers 20% of our job remits.

– No access is given to users unless they are trained on Navigation plus a specified training session for their area of work e.g. Admissions.

– Ulster has multiple campuses, located up to 70 miles from each other.– Due to lack of resource, training sessions are arranged in an adhoc

manner depending on demand.

• Advantages– Training is centrally maintained including access rights.– Training is consistent.– User Manuals are kept up to date.

Case Study: Ulster

• Disadvantages– Unable to run regular training sessions.

– Experienced problems with lack of communication at times regarding training sessions.

• Further Observations– Hoping to introduce e-learning – this would cut the

resource used on travelling by half but would require time and resource.

Case Study: Norway• Outline

– NSM is a multi campus institution, located in different Norwegian cities and in Shanghai, China (main campus is in Oslo).

– Do not have a ‘trainer position’ established.– Training is delivered by members of the Banner Functional Team and

representatives from the Registrars office - approx 350 Banner users.– There is at least one ‘Super User’ at every campus and each campus

is responsible for the initial Banner training of new staff.– There are four different training sessions that are offered three times a

year.

• Advantages– Training is consistent.– Courses are good.– Course Evaluations are good.

Case Study: Norway• Disadvantages

– The Super User approach is not working very well – problems with data quality.

– Frequency of courses offered should be doubled – do not have the resources.

– Integrated Banner to several systems – the need for training based on functional processes instead of Banner training only has increased over the last 2 years.

• Further Observations– Could do with earmarked training resources to move things forward

faster.

– Hoping to introduce e-learning but this still requires a trainer’s time to develop and maintain online material.

General Conclusions

• Well resourced training can benefit the organisation on a number of levels

– Training is essential for good data quality– Provides staff with confidence to complete their role– Staff morale improved– Improved management information– Reduces costs by improving staff turnover

• It can also help to facilitate change

General Conclusions

• E-learning – Development does not replace the need for

trainer/participant interaction.– Resource is still required to develop, maintain and

enhance the training.

• Collaboration– Sharing practices highlights issues associated with

training.– Sharing materials and ideas can help make

changes and improvements.

General Conclusions

• ‘We've had such thorough training, we've had an excellent team on the ground. With the minor glitches that have occurred, we've been able to take care of them. And the teams on the ground are getting tons of incredible data.’

Laurel Clark, Astronaut

• ‘There is a reasonable concern that posting raw data can be misleading for those who are not trained in its use and who do not have the broader perspective within which to place a particular piece of data that is raw.’

Stephen Cambone, US Politician

General Conclusions

Training Makes a Difference

Open Question Time

For more info email us:

Carla – c.r.rawsthorne@salford.ac.uk

Sam - samantha.casey@ntu.ac.uk

Next Special Interest Group –

14 May 2009 – Greenwich, please email for more info

Thank you for attending &

enjoy the rest of the conference