Information Systems and University Policy Implementation

1. Domain 4Thursday, October 128:15 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Canal A&B

2. Administrative Systems as Instantiations of University Policy

3. Or: Information Systems as Administration’s 2x4’s

4. Common Tales of Woe • “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”

5. Information Systems as Manifestation of Policy • 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

6. ERP Ideals vs. Reality

7. Montana Higher Education -- 1993 • Ten colleges & universities • Independent operation • State Commissioner of Higher Education • State Board of Regents (appointed by Governor)

8. Montana Higher Education -- 1995 • 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

9. The Montana University System Northern Missoula & Missoula COT COT Great Falls Helena COT Butte Billings & Billings COT Bozeman Western Montana State University University of Montana

10. The Montana University System Northern Circa 650 Miles Missoula & Missoula COT COT Great Falls (Washington, DC to Nashville, TN) Helena COT Butte Billings & Billings COT Bozeman Western Montana State University University of Montana

11. Y2K Dividend • 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

12. Choices, Choices but … • 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

13. Implementation • 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

14. How We Did It • Clear mandate • Studied intervention • Governance structure • Communication • Focus • Superb help from our friends

15. Mandate • 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

16. Studied Intervention • CoHE decided general ledger structure from two alternatives • CoHE consultant motivated adoption of NCHEMS database for data definition standards

17. Governance • 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

18. Project Teams • Finance • Financial Aid • Human Resources • Student Systems • Information Technology

19. Communicate • Use the technologies • Video conferencing • Phone conferencing • NetMeeting • Whiteboard • Web site • Newsletter – tailored to campuses

20. Maintaining Our Focus • Y2K loomed large over the horizon • State CoHE and BoR were watching • (State DoA was also interested)

21. Standards • 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

22. Flexibilities in Our Approach • 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

23. What We’d Do Differently • 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)

24. Did It Work? Yes! • 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

25. Did It Work? No! • 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

26. Data Warehouse Project • 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

27. Credits • 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

28. Questions?