Business Services Committee
1:30-3:00 p.m., October 3, 2014, FAC 228D
I. 1:30 – 1:55 Change Control Board – Update (Kristi Fisher)
II. 1:55 – 2:20 Administrative Systems Master Project – Update (Renee Wallace)
III. 2:20 – 2:50 Student Portal (Renee Wallace, Rich Janes, Jody Couch)
IV. 2:50 – 3:00 Committee Co-Chair – Election
Business Services Committee Meeting
October 3, 2014
Change Coordination Process
Summary of 1x1 Meetings with BSC Members
What we covered:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Institutional directive from the top
Buy-in from Executive Officers and Deans
In-person discussions with associate deans/directors/IT managers to ensure awareness/clarity
Detailed info for technical staff – info sessions, FAQ’s, sample business cases, etc.
Clear guideline on when units should utilize the process
Only applies to changes that impact other units
Brief survey to gather basic information from IT managers – utilizes skip logic
Distinguishes “mandatory” changes from “discretionary”
Change Coordination Subcommittee (of BSC) reviews submissions and facilitates coordination
and “solution-ing” (broad representation)
j. Changes only escalated to BSC if CCS cannot resolve or coordinate resources to accommodate
k. BSC attempts solution and coordination – can halt a project at this point
l. Change only escalated to CCB (“Board”) if significant impact to institutional initiative or BSC
decision is appealed
m. Board can re-allocate resources, adjust timelines, or deny requested change
Feedback – Main Ideas:
1) Executive buy-in is a MUST
Need “active support” rather than simply awareness
Will never be able to succeed (as mangers) unless “the boss” shows understanding of
constraints and exercises discipline
Executives must facilitate a change to “best interest of the institution” culture
2) Focus on coordination “PROCESS” rather than “Board”
Refer to the initiative the “Change Control Process” (for which there is ultimately a Board)
The intent is to coordinate and move forward… more of a “notification” process… submit your
change and let us help you!
Focus on potential benefits of coordination and provide examples
Building-in professional courtesy to colleagues and institution; brings sense of order
3) Survey
List of submissions available online – search-able / filterable (HUGE benefit to being able to
easily find other units with similar plans / projects and coordinate)
Will submissions be “editable?” Can they be revised or updated?
Will we be capturing “in flight” projects? What about Application Modernization projects?
Provide a survey FAQ and guidance on which projects to enter first if you already have a list
1
Business Services Committee Meeting
October 3, 2014
Survey and process will need to be organic – change questions, criteria, thresholds over time
based on volume and significance of submissions
4) Pilots and Support
Consider piloting with BSC members’ real projects first – discuss and tweak.
Stage “go-live” based on significance or risk first.
Consider staffing a central group to help with “common good” solutions and application needs.
Consider a “help line” resource
5) Process
Evaluation eventually becomes subjective – need guidelines
Each CCS member should be responsible for vetting and finding solution for changes in their
subject area
Name of “Board” implies decision-making. If decisions made, what is appellate process?
Responses should be more “this is how much it would cost” rather than “you can’t”
6) TRANSPARENCY is a must – BSC needs to decide what this means…
How can we make this process more transparent?
What is transparency? What does it look like?
What are the behaviors we need to see and at what levels in order for this process to succeed?
Focus on what can get done rather than what can’t get done
Need to establish clear principles – mission, vision, goal, strategies, metrics
Consider standard format for reporting out at every meeting – work from same goals… (1) focus on
what can do (2) can’t do – goes to parking lot (3) “we proceed on” and how
2
University Portal
BBSSCC
UUnniivveerrssiittyy
PPoorrttaall
AAddvviissoorryy
GGrroouupp
SSttuuddeenntt
CCoonntteenntt
TTeeaam
m
IIm
mpplleem
meennttaattiioonn
TTeecchhnnoollooggyy TTeeaam
m
TTeecchhnnoollooggyy
TTeeaam
m
SSttuuddeenntt
CCoonntteenntt
TTeeaam
m
SSttaaffff
CCoonntteenntt
TTeeaam
m
SSttaaffff CCoonntteenntt
TTeeaam
m
FFaaccuullttyy
CCoonntteenntt
TTeeaam
m
FFaaccuullttyy
CCoonntteenntt
TTeeaam
m
RReesseeaarrcchh
CCoonntteenntt
TTeeaam
m
RReesseeaarrcchh
CCoonntteenntt
TTeeaam
m
Implementation
Operations
Portal Advisory Group: responsible for recommending technology, standards, and strategy as well as answering
questions around funding and portal usage.
· University Communications (Horn)
· IT and Security (VanDerZiel)
· Student Stakeholders (Arrellaga, Connerat, Couch)
· Staff, Faculty, and Research Stakeholders (Chawner, Shockley, Bartlmehs, Janes)
· Student Senate Stakeholder
Content Teams: responsible for layout, design, and prioritizing, creating, and approving content
· Product Manager (Couch or Janes)
· Business representatives named by stakeholders
Technology Teams: responsible for implementation and sustainment of portal technology
· Product Manager (Couch or Janes)
· IT Manager (Henson)
· Senior Portal Administrator (TBD, position posted)
· Developers/integrators (current/contract/vendor staff)