Data Governance Committee (DGC) Meeting Notes date 9_5_2013
Phone Conference 10:30am
*Highlighted = attended
Co-chairs
*Susan Maxwell
Clark College
*Carmen McKenzie
SBCTC
Business Affairs Commission (BAC)
*Kevin McKay
Edmonds Community College
Linda Schoonmaker
Clover Park Technical College
Human Resources & Management Commission (HRMC)
*Bonnie Cauffman
Peninsula College
Information Technology Commission (ITC)
Russ Beard
Bellevue College
Sue Williamson
Skagit Valley College
*Eva Smith
Edmonds Community College
Instruction Commission (IC)
*Tom Nielsen
Bellevue College
*Peter Lortz – new member
North Seattle
Public Information Commission (PIC)
*Sherry Nelson
SBCTC
Janelle Runyon
SBCTC
Research and Planning Commission (RPC)
*Cynthia Requa
Green River
*Hal Royaltey
Peninsula
Student Services Commission (WSSSC)
June Stacey-Clemons
Clover Park Technical College
*Rhonda Coats
South Puget Sound CC
Next Meeting:
10:30am October 3rd, 2013 Thursday
Meeting Notes:
Carmen gave an update on coding SBCTC is involved with. Degree type coding is one that CtcLink
needed quickly. She asked for quick feedback, but only got a response from 3 people. Carmen asked
about those who did not respond, what was the reason for not responding, how can we improve this.
Rhonda was on vacation. Kevin talked to a few people on campus but would have liked more time to
get it to BAC.
Carmen mentioned that it is hard to deal with ctcLink data elements where we don’t have the full
history.
1
DGC Meeting 9_5_2013
Carmen got feedback from Hal and Susan. She discussed it with ctcLink staff and then they made final
decisions.
Degree Type Code
Description
Legacy Entity (Exit Code)
4 Characters
30 Characters
AGS
Associate Gen Studies
1
APT
Associate Prof-Tech
1
AAS
AA
Associate in Applied Science-T
Associate in Arts Transfer
T
C, D, E, F
AS
Associate in Science Transfer
A, B, I, J, K, H, O, P, Q, S, W, G,
R, M, L, N, V, and science
majors with exit code C and D.
BAA
Bachelor of Applied Arts
U
BAS
Bachelor of Applied Science
U
C90
Certificate:90 or more credits
2
C45
Certificate: 45 to 89 credits
3
C20
Certificate: 20 to 44 credits
4
C01
C00
Certificate: 1 to 19 credits
Certificate: Non-Credit
4 or 9
9
CIN
CEX
HSC
FAP
GEX
Certificate Individualized
External Certification
High School Completion
Federal Apprenticeship
GED
9
9
6
5
7
Plan codes are still needed.
Carmen is working on a proposal to modify exit code 4 and 9 definitions. Plan is not yet in good form to
send to the group.
Discussion of process for data governance. Change to Legacy system coding to align with new PS
coding, and for better information in the meantime. This is not a PS quick turn around project. Exit
code 4 would be 20 to 44 credits; exit code 9 would be under 20 credits, also including the non-credit.
Program approval process is a 20 credit threshold. If there was no DGC Carmen would have created this
coding at SBCTC then vetted with Directors and the Student Services and Instruction Commissions along
with WEC and ARC – councils. How do we make the transition from the old to the new process?
Tom says it sounds like it’s ready to go out and does not need much work.
Which commission is accountable for exit coding?
2
DGC Meeting 9_5_2013
They determine any councils needed – form a workgroup
How do we communicate to the system that we have made a change to legacy? How do we implement?
Carmen says SBCTC is tasked with the implementation. We need to be clear that this is for discussion –
and how it will become final and how people will know it’s final.
Rhonda – ctcLink and what’s still changeable. If we can’t do much then we don’t need much discussion.
So maybe it’s a shorter DGC process – skip the Ad Hoc workgroup and just discuss within DGC and then
our own feedback loops. Still need to decide who is accountable.
Agreement from the group that it does not need a workgroup.
Susan sent the Decision Matrix for discussion.
Who is accountable? Exit codes are joint – both program based, what is the correct exit code for a
program, but also how to apply to students. We are really looking at it from the program perspective,
especially workforce degrees. There was agreement that based on why we are looking at this (Cynthia)
then it belongs to IC – Instruction. Accountability = responsibility. IF coding is not happening as it has
been decided it would go back to Instruction as an implementation issue. While noting that Student
Affairs is typically responsible for data entry of this element. There was no one who was opposed to this
assignment.
Decision log – Cynthia would like to see some type of documentation about decision, discussion,
rationale, members involved at the time. ctcLink used this for foundation documents. While this
information is in these notes it is not in a concise format. Carmen and Susan will work on this.
Carmen – in a metadata dictionary there should be information about who is accountable.
Final decisions about the process. This one is a hybrid process. Carmen will finalize the draft and send it
to DGC committee for review. Discuss at the Oct. meeting. Then talk about implementation and
communication. This will start us on the communication plan. Translates into degree type in PS. This is
different than PS plan codes.
Process Flow and Charter – Carmen is going to work on this documentation of flow. How to archive
decisions. Need a place to share this information.
Susan will send Charter in the next few days and ask for feedback from everyone.
Tom – backwards mapping of exit code 9. Why are we calling it a certificate if it’s not really? Carmen
says 9 has a messy definition, 2300 coded as 9 last year. In PS will have better breakouts: 0 credit,
industry certification, <20 credits.
3
DGC Meeting 9_5_2013
Decision Matrix
A = Accountable, the commission whose DGC Members are responsible for sending the request to a
their Data Stewards group made up of appropriate members, including other commission listed as C
who have affirmed their need to be involved in the process. These same DGC members will bring the
final work product back to the DG Committee for a vote, affirming that this will work for the system as a
whole.
C = Consulted, commissions with a possible need to be involved in the review and discussion of a data
element. Since the matrix is organized at a database level a commission may decline to be involved in
the discussion of a particular data element after they review the data element.
I = Informed, commissions with no need to be involved in the review and discussions of data elements,
but do need to be aware of the work and informed of final decisions.
Communication -- Sherry – originator of the message should send out as HTML. You can change it
individually, but phones will go to text.
Eva suggested a Google form to get responses since the voting button in Outlook does not work for us.
4
DGC Meeting 9_5_2013
Education of DGC - Bob S. discussion. Final proposal is $11,000. SBCTC will put in $2000. Day 1 –
Susan, Carmen, and for part Janelle and Sherry. Second day is all 16 members. Should we continue to
pursue funding? And if so, how? Eve speaking for Kevin – if colleges put in money can we bring extra
people (yes) and how can we get him to the Presidents. We want presidents to put in money to show
they are committed. $14,500 all together for 2.5 days. If 2 trips then $19,000 total. Edmonds feels it is
important. Tom says it sounds valid and he needs education. Bellevue would be willing to continue.
Hal, not sure. Rhonda, not sure of intended audience for this and not sure commission could commit
money to this. Cynthia asked if we need a bid due to cost? Also, is Bob the right person? Eva says bob is
non-invasive and that’s what we adopted. We don’t want to be lectured to – we want this to be
interactive and specific to what we are doing and how can we do DG better. Carmen will check on any
bid needs. Carmen and Eva will looks at other possible education.
5
DGC Meeting 9_5_2013