· assessing and leveraging common systems ... shared financial systems ... vendor-provided...

Submitted by

��

��

��

October 25, 2004

Assessing and Leveraging Common Systems

Report to University of Wisconsin 10/25/04 System

i


Table of Contents Page I. Methodology ...................................................................................................................2

Interviews with UW Campus and System Leadership......................................................2 Review of UW Literature and Background Materials .......................................................2 Interviews and Research on Systems in Other States .....................................................2 Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations .................................................................2

II. Analysis of UW Common Systems.............................................................................. 3 Definitions of Common Systems at UW System ..............................................................3

Common Systems under the Common Systems Review Group...............................3 Participation in Other System-wide Technology Initiatives ........................................4 Emerging Initiatives....................................................................................................5

Changing Perspectives on Technology, Nationally ..........................................................6 The Emergence of Strategic Institutional Management© ..........................................6 Economic Conditions, Technology Providers, and Seminal Publications..................8 Key Decision Points, UW Common Systems.................................................................10 Economic Conditions ...............................................................................................10 Student Administration Systems (SAS) ...................................................................10 Shared Financial Systems (SFS).............................................................................11 Appointment, Payroll, and Benefit Systems (APBS)................................................11 Academic Systems...................................................................................................11 Common Systems Review Group............................................................................11 Insights about Common Systems from Interviews .........................................................11

Leadership and Management ..................................................................................12 Financial Incentives and Management ....................................................................14 Next Important Challenges for Common Systems...................................................15 Institutional Plans for Leveraging Technology and Common Systems ...................16

Insights from Other Systems of Public Institutions .........................................................17 University System of Georgia (USG) .......................................................................17 University of North Carolina System (UNC).............................................................18 Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) .............................................20 III. The Future of Leveraging Common Systems............................................................21

Strategic Institutional Management ................................................................................21 Technology Infrastructure ........................................................................................21 Business Processes.................................................................................................21 Strategic Alignment ..................................................................................................22

Potential for the UW System ..........................................................................................22 IV. Recommendations and Next Steps ............................................................................25

1. Achieving Sound Financial Planning and Management ..........................................25 2. Planning for the Next Common System Challenges................................................25 3. Renewing the Common Systems Review Group.....................................................26 4. Leveraging Technology to Create New Value Propositions ....................................26 5. Engaging Faculty and Other Key Stakeholders.......................................................27 6. Leadership in Strategic Institutional Management...................................................27


Report to University of Wisconsin 10/25/04 System

ii

Table of Contents (Continued)

APPENDICES: Tables and Graphics Supporting the Report Introduction..............................................................................................................................A-1 Appendix I: Interviews and Meetings with UW System/Campus Leaders .........................A-2 Appendix II: Resources Used in Project ...............................................................................A-4 UW System Reports and Materials ..............................................................................A-4 Books, Articles, and Reports ........................................................................................A-5 Materials from Other States..........................................................................................A-7 Appendix III. Participation in Common Systems, UW Campuses ......................................A-8 1. Participation in Common Systems.........................................................................A-8 2. Participation in Other System-wide Technology Initiatives ....................................A-9 Appendix IV: Changing Perspectives on Technology.......................................................A-10 The Emergence of Strategic Institutional Management .............................................A-10 Economic Conditions, Technology Providers, Seminal Publications .........................A-11

UW Common Systems ...............................................................................................A-12 Appendix V: Key Decision Points at UW Campuses .........................................................A-13 1. Legacy Systems...................................................................................................A-13

2. Student Systems..................................................................................................A-14 3. Financial Systems................................................................................................A-15 4. Human Resources Systems ................................................................................A-16 5. Portal ....................................................................................................................A-17 6. Wireless ...............................................................................................................A-18 7. Other ....................................................................................................................A-19

Appendix VI: Background Materials on Other Systems of Public Institutions ...............A-20 1. University System of Georgia ..............................................................................A-20

2. University of North Carolina System....................................................................A-27


Report to University of Wisconsin 10/25/04 1

Assessing and Leveraging Common Systems A Report to the University of Wisconsin System

The University of Wisconsin (UW) System engaged Strategic Initiatives to conduct a Common Systems Assessment, whose purposes included:

• Providing an independent, third-party assessment of the UW System’s investment in academic and organizational systems (Common Systems);

• Evaluating the alignment of academic and organizational systems with the overall UW System’s institutional focus on student learning and teaching; and

• Exploring how to leverage Common Systems and suggesting potential scenarios and “stretch goals” that will stimulate the next round of conversations about leveraging technology investments and increasing value propositions for UW stakeholders (learners, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, others).

This project spanned the period April-September 2004, culminating in this final report and a supporting collection of Appendices with charts and diagrams that are necessary to understanding the report. The project was designed and funded as a high-level assessment, not a detailed benchmarking and analysis. This report consists of four parts:

I. Methodology. This section discusses the methodology used in the collection, analysis, and synthesis of information and insight on UW Common Systems and best practices from other state systems of institutions.

II. Analysis of UW Common Systems. This section of the report tells the story of UW Common Systems. Our first task was to define what is included in UW Common Systems and which UW campuses and entities are participating in these Common Systems. Then, the Strategic Initiatives Project Team analyzed the development of UW Common Systems in the context of national developments in the information technology industry. In this context, we present the insights from interviews with campus and system leaders and from a high-level analysis of developments in other systems of public institutions. This contextualized analysis sets the stage for considering new approaches to leveraging Common Systems and next steps for UW System leadership.

III. Leveraging Common Systems. How can systems of institutions leverage their Common Systems to achieve greater productivity and create new value propositions for their stakeholders – learners, faculty, staff, alumni, and others? This section of the report explores these issues.

IV. Recommendations and Next Steps. Building on conversations with the Common Systems Review Group, this section of the report suggests potential next steps for the UW System regarding its Common Systems.



I. Methodology The information collection methodology deployed in this assessment involved on-site and telephone interviews, review of UW System background materials and documents, review of the literature on information technology practice, and high-level review of practices in other state systems of public institutions. Synthesis of insights and findings were developed through working sessions with the Common Systems Review Group and UW System Staff, which was followed by the crafting of this report. This report consists of a textual document and an accompanying packet of Appendices containing figures and tables. Readers are encouraged to access both documents simultaneously. Interviews with UW Campus and System Leadership The Strategic Initiatives Project Team interviewed a broad cross-section of the leadership of individual UW campuses/entities. This included chancellors, provosts/vice chancellors of academic affairs, chief business officers, and chief information officers, including many from campuses that had been critics of Common System decisions. Our Project Team also engaged System Leadership in discussing Common System developments and decisions and the reactions of campus leaders. Appendix I details the individuals, sites, and dates of the interviews which engaged over 50 campus and System leaders. Review of UW Documents and the Technology Literature Appendix II contains a bibliography of the UW System reports and background materials, plus the books, articles, and reports on information technology developments, concepts, and practice that informed Strategic Initiatives’ analysis. Interviews and Research on Systems in Other States Appendix II also lists the documents and interviews which informed our high-level analysis of Common System practices at other systems of public institutions in Georgia, Tennessee, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations Meetings with the Common System Review Group on June 3 and July 15, 2004, were utilized to discuss findings, implications, and suggestions for next steps. Following these conversations, the Strategic Initiatives Project Team synthesized the findings and recommendations in this report.



II. Analysis of UW Common Systems

This report tells the story of UW Common Systems, in the context of national developments in the practice of deploying and leveraging information technology resources in higher education. This section presents the full range of perspectives gathered from interviews on the development of Common Systems, related decision processes, and financial incentives. Definitions of Common Systems at UW System In reviewing the involvement of UW in “Common Systems” projects, three classes of activities emerged:

• Common Systems under the purview of the Common Systems Review Group, • Other System-wide technology systems or initiatives, and • Emerging initiatives that could be considered to become system-wide initiatives or

Common Systems. The following sections identify systems and initiatives that fall into these categories:

Common Systems under the Common Systems Review Group. The UW System’s Common System Review Group oversees the following administrative and academic systems. Appendix III shows which organizational entities are currently participating in these common systems. There are 15 “entities” in all included in our comparison – 13 University campuses, UW Colleges (13 two-year campuses), and UW Extension. 1. PeopleSoft Shared Financials System (PS SFS) serves as the financial services platform

for all UW schools, providing general ledger, purchasing, accounts payable, asset management, accounts receivable, and billing. Five campuses have interfaces to SFS: Madison, La Crosse and Eau Claire on legacy systems and Stout and Stevens Point on vendor-provided systems.

2. PeopleSoft Student Administration System (PS SAS) is being run by 10 entities of the UW System. However, the definitions used by these campuses reflect the rules and regulations of each campus, creating different instances of the same application.

3. Appointment, Payroll, and Benefits System (Lawson) is currently under implementation.

All entities will run the APBS application. This system interfaces with the other components of the Common Systems.

4. Learning Management System (Desire2Learn) is hosted for all UW entities except UW-

Milwaukee at the Learn@UW utility, which is managed by the UW-Madison Division of Information Technology (DoIT).

5. Identification, Authentication, and Authorization (IAA) is an identity management service for everyone in UW System, developed by the UW-Madison DoIT middleware group. It provides point-in-time representation of everyone as student, employee, or authorized exception. IAA Registry will serve as a common user directory for Common Systems functions.

6. Kronos is an employment timekeeping system implemented over time by UW Madison and

made available to the UW System. It is used by 10 entities.

7. APBS Data Warehouse capabilities are available to all entities of the UW System.



8. Application Tools: FirstLogic, Brio, Informatica have been made available to System entities. By current count, 14 entities are using Brio, 14 are using Informatica, and 11 are using FirstLogic.

9. Facility of Shared Technology and Resources (FASTAR) is a shared central utility offering

hardware, software, and staff support. FASTAR hosts PS SAS applications for UW-Parkside and UW Colleges and provides major support for PS SAS version upgrades and patches. By current figuring, 10 entities have used FASTAR for PS SAS. Another 14 entities use FASTAR Collaterals. FASTAR delivers a production environment for software applications (FirstLogic, Brio, Informatica) used across the System by most campuses. FASTAR also hosts APBS.

10. Methodology for Implementation at Lowest Effort and Resources (MILER) Core Team is a group of UW staff and external consultants who move from campus to campus providing expertise in the implementation of PS SAS. It is essentially a best practices approach to implementing applications across the System. In recent years, the MILER Core Team has diversified to apply their efforts to other areas such as system integration efforts, data warehousing, and shared financials. By latest reckoning, 14 entities (all except Extension) have utilized MILER insights to evaluate PS SAS capabilities and all 15 entities have utilized MILER integration insights in some way.

To some extent, Central Data Reporting (CDR) can be considered an element of Common Systems since some Common Systems needed to be customized to feed CDR and make it work.

Participation in Other System-wide Technology Initiatives. While these initiatives are not overseen by the Common Systems Review Group, they are nonetheless important to the System-wide information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure. Appendix III shows which institutions are currently participating in these initiatives. 1. Library System (Endeavor’s Voyager, OCLC/Atlas ILLiad system, and ExLibris’

MetaLib/SFX). In many ways, this is the gold standard for collaborative, system-wide initiatives at UW System. The Council of UW Libraries (CUWL) is a Board of Library Directors from across the System. They oversee a number of collaborative activities to support a common, System-wide resource for sharing library materials. The Office of Learning and Information Technology (OLIT) has a state budget line to support library initiatives, but management of the budget and initiatives remains in OLIT not the Common Systems Group. All UW campuses except Extension participate in the Library initiative.

2. Microsoft Contract. The UW System has a System-wide contract for Microsoft, but is funded

entirely by the campuses. All campuses except River Falls have taken advantage of this contract.

3. Oracle Contract. The UW System has a System-wide contract for Oracle, but it is funded

entirely by the campuses. All campuses have taken advantage of this vehicle. 4. WiscNet is the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for Wisconsin educational institutions. It is a

cooperative serving 340 of Wisconsin’s school districts, all 12 Cooperative Education Service Agencies (CESAs), all 28 UW System institutions, all 18 Technical College institutions, 25 private colleges, 13 public library systems, 46 local governments, the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs, and the State of Wisconsin. WiscNet supplies network access for state agencies, supports administrative software and data sharing in the UW and Technical College Systems, and facilitates instructional video services to UW institutions and interconnects county health departments and hospitals to homeland security. All 15 UW campuses have utilized WiscNet.



As an organization, WiscNet is an educational cooperative, owned and operated by the member institutions. WiscNet procures internet transit beyond the borders of Wisconsin at educational discount prices and provides a set of educational services such as filtering services and course management hosting. But this is old news. The current news is that a Next Generation Network needs to be developed. In addition to these systems-wide technology initiatives, several other efforts deserve mentioning, but are not included in the Table in Appendix III:

ITS@Wisconsin was the mechanism for providing the e-learning platforms (Learningspace, BlackBoard, WebCT) that were used by the UW System prior to D2L/Learn@UW. Academic Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Co-Lab was formed through an agreement between the Department of Defense, UW, and Wisconsin Technical College Systems as a first step in sharing the knowledge resources available in the nation’s colleges and universities. Ed Meachen chaired the ADL Co-Lab Commission and Judy Brown is Director of the Co-Lab; both are OLIT employees. The Common Systems Review Group has no oversight relationship with the Academic ADL Co-Lab. University of Wisconsin Learning Innovations (UWLI) is an online learning support organization, specializing in custom courseware design, development, and state-of-the-art learner services. UWLI develops and supports online degrees and certificates for UW institutions. Administrative responsibility is shared by UW Extension and UW System Administration. Currently over 100 online courses within UW programs are supported by UWLI. The UWLI is undergoing significant review.

Emerging Initiatives. A number of initiatives have not been formally given initiative status by the Common Systems Review Group but may be eventually. There is a mechanism for identifying and vetting such initiatives-in-waiting through the Collaterals Working Group. 1. Collaterals Working Group is an ad hoc group, meeting monthly, that is open to anyone

interested in its agenda. It is a group of IT people from across the System who meet to discuss issues relating to Common Systems, investigate new software applications, and in general share resources and expertise. Frequently, functional staff are attracted to the meetings as well. The Collaterals Working Group does not have a project budget; any ideas for new initiatives are vetted through the Common Systems Review Group.

2. Portal. As part of the PS ECollaborative package, the UW System licenses the PS portal, which campuses have the option to install; there is no System-wide plan for portal development. UW Milwaukee and UW-Superior are in the process of bringing up the PS portal. UW Madison has had a portal for years (based on Vignette) and is exploring uPortal as an option for the future. UW Stout has developed a homegrown portal product. Many contend that it may already be too late for a system-wide portal initiative.

3. Budget System. The Best Business Practice Group is looking for a budget system and considering options.

4. Grant Management System. UW Madison has been exploring grant management systems for several years. There is a system up and running that needs to be replaced. This could interest UW Milwaukee and UW Extension, as well as others.

5. Common Systems Interoperability Architecture Working Group (CSIAWG). This group is discussing loosely coupled, service-based options that would enable better integration among the Common Systems.



6. Security. Security is an increasingly important issue for all campuses. It is a corollary issue for existing and new Common Systems.

7. Mobile Computing. Individual campuses such as UW Stout have significant mobile

computing programs. 8. ePortfolio. ePortfolio initiatives have been undertaken by a number of other systems of

institutions. 9. Knowledge Repositories and Digital Asset Management. This is a hot topic at many

major research universities and some systems of institutions. UW Madison is doing a campus pilot using DSpace, an open source product from MIT.

Changing Perspectives on Technology, Nationally To understand the context for information technology decisions that were made by the UW System and the individual campuses, Strategic Initiatives developed the three graphics in Appendix IV. The reader should scan these figures while reading the textual description below. The Emergence of Strategic Institutional Management ©. The first graphic portrays the changes in administrative systems, academic systems, technology issues and developments, and leadership/management issues over the period ranging from the early 1990s to today. Dramatic changes have occurred in the higher education technology scene, especially since 1999-2000. In the early 1990s, technology decision makers in higher education were confronted with a relatively basic set of technologies and issues. At this time, administrative systems consisted of standalone, legacy systems, and the concept of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems had not made its debut on the higher education scene. Administrative and academic systems and computing were treated as highly separate elements. Library automation was a primary focus of academic systems. Technology issues were largely hardware-driven; the competition between mainframe and mini-computers provoked serious debate. As for leadership and management issues, institutions focused on departmental and functional performance. Leadership struggled to overcome the limitations caused by fragmented business operations and information silos. Advances in Administrative Systems. Advances in administrative systems were crafted to overcome these limitations and more. Vendor providers touted new approaches like “Strategic Enrollment Management,” which enabled institutions to use purchased software to link activities in recruitment, admissions, financial aid, retention, advising, and related functions. The efforts used the term “enterprise” to describe this collection of enrollment services-related functions. Around 1997, the concept of ERP arrived in higher education to great fanfare, symbolized by PeopleSoft introducing its flagship Human Resources and Financial Systems and, in collaboration with institutions of higher education, first introducing its Student Information System module and offering a set of tools so institutions could create their own integrated suite of administrative software. The adaptation of ERP was given a great boost by institutional concerns about the impact of Y2K.



The leadership and management issues addressed by early days ERP emphasized achieving greater transactional efficiency, information integration, reporting and business analytics, business intelligence, and recruiting and retention. At this stage of development, institutional leaders assumed that customizing ERP systems to memorialize the current practices of each institution was not only a good idea, but an imperative. While institutional executive leaders were instrumental in the decision to upgrade technology, they delegated responsibility to end users to decide how applications should be customized. At this point, the term “enterprise” was used by technology vendors and institutional users to describe the collection of administrative functions of the institution included in ERP – Human Resources, Financial, Student, and Development. Academic applications were not part of the “enterprise” suite of applications. Technology issues during 1995-1999 focused on database issues (relational vs. non-relational), migration to ERP client server environments, graphical user interface (GUI), multi-platform, and the unknown challenges of Y2K. Vendors and institutional leaders debated the benefits of “best of breed” vs. “fully integrated solutions.” Toward Learning Management Systems. Academic systems were slower to develop, but eventually course information systems (CIS), course management systems (CMS), and eventually learning management systems (LMS) emerged on the scene. These systems automated the providing of course materials and management of course-based learning experiences. While they could be interfaced with other administrative systems, these first generation offerings were essentially standalone course systems. The Internet Strikes, Leading to Fusion of Administrative and Academic Systems. Networked computing had become an important issue on campus before the Internet. But the Internet was like a lightning strike that changed campus academic and administrative systems. It opened the door to pervasive communication, free-range information access, and significant knowledge sharing between individuals all over the world. During the period 1999-2000, campus users, technology thought leaders, and technology vendors came to appreciate the importance of the Internet and Web-based applications for their products and services. From 2001 onward, networking issues became preeminent and developing standards and Web native applications drew greater attention. The pervasive use and sharing of information and identity management have emerged as top issues. These developments stimulated the convergence of administrative and academic systems offered by technology vendors and the emergence of new meanings of the term “enterprise.” Blackboard was at the forefront of developing an e-education platform, capitalizing on the transformation of the Internet as a powerful environment for the education experience. This enabled the fusion of learning systems, content, and community building available through emerging portal capabilities. In 2002, SCT began to use the concept of “e-Education infrastructure” to describe a fused set of administrative/academic systems and services, encompassing portal, administrative and academic applications, communications, data management, network, and hardware. In these solutions, services were equally important as software and hardware, if not more so. WebCT used the term “academic enterprise systems” (AES) to refer to its next generation of LMS offerings, which fused academic enterprise applications together, including knowledge management capabilities. Reflecting the transformative influence of the Internet, leadership/management issues during the 2001-2003 time period focused on the Webification of products, services, experiences, and knowledge. The conventional wisdom about customized ERP did a 180 degree turn. Many institutions began to focus on the desirability of implementing non-customized ERP (what Gartner called the “plain vanilla” vendor solution) and accepting the best practices embedded in established ERP solutions. Institutional thought leaders discovered process reinvention as a



means to leverage new systems applications. Portalization (using enterprise portals to access and fuse ERP, LMS, and knowledge assets) became a newly “hyped” practice. Using enterprise portals to encourage self-service for students, faculty, and staff became a new frontier practice on many leading-edge campuses. Economic Downturn. Beginning in 2001, the impact of the national economic downturn began to significantly impact institutional technology initiatives, especially at public institutions. Several years of progressive budget cutbacks led to tuition hikes, reductions in services, and severe scrutiny for technology initiatives across higher education. These economic exigencies have had a profound impact on technology initiatives, raising the cry for accountability for outcomes and results from IT investments. The Emergence of Strategic Institutional Management ©. By 2004, the intersection of these developments had created a new reality for leaders in higher education:

• Institutional leaders have come to see the value of information technology in linking all of the resources and activities of the institution. This can achieve the fusion of academic and administrative applications, research, teaching and learning, public service, outreach, and other activities of the university. To describe this fusion, one must move beyond the term “enterprise,” which has been corrupted through earlier, narrow usage. Many institutional leaders are using variations on this theme. They see the need to move beyond ERP, LMS, and portal technologies. We are calling this phenomenon “strategic institutional management.”

• Information technology is emerging as the instrument through which institutions can leverage and manage all of their institutional resources, potentially enhancing productivity and enhancing value propositions for stakeholders. The emerging principle is that aggressively leveraging technology will be necessary to deliver the “value on investment” necessary to justify continuing investment in information and communications technology. If information technology is not leveraged to create strategic differentiation, it may not be worth the investment.

• The new vision of tomorrow’s technology infrastructure is the seamless fusion of networking, portal, ERP, AES, and vast digital resources. By 2004, this model had become crystal clear to most thought leaders.

• Today’s technology issues include security, open source, Web services and Internet2. In higher education, the potential for open source applications software has taken a quantum leap in 2003 and 2004.

• For the past 15 years, the emphasis on information technology has been the development of technology infrastructure. Today’s Institutional leadership must raise the ante beyond infrastructure to include business processes and strategic alignment. In order to leverage information technology to deliver value, institutional and system leadership will need to combine these three elements of the pyramid. This is a tall order.

Put simply, the leadership/management issues and vantage point for today’s leadership are dramatically different than they have been over the past fifteen years. This is an important principle for evaluating both past decisions and future directions for Common Systems at UW System. Economic Conditions, Technology Providers, and Seminal Publications. The second graphic in Appendix IV elaborates on the trends highlighted above in several significant ways.



Technology Providers. Over the past 15 years, the portfolio of technology vendors serving higher education has changed dramatically. Look at the mix of companies in the Pre-ERP/ERP space and compare it with the mix in subsequent years. Early leading vendors focused exclusively or primarily on higher education. Major ERP vendors (PeopleSoft, SAP, and Oracle) came to the higher education market from other industries. Innovative new companies came and went (The Robinson Group and Buzzeo). Consolidation of higher education vendors has been a significant factor (SCT acquiring Information Associates, other small companies, Campus Pipeline – portal pioneer, then being acquired by Sungard; Jenzabar acquiring a collection of small companies; Oracle pursuing PeopleSoft) and will likely continue. Open source solutions for some software application elements of ERP are being developed by the Sakai Project and other initiatives. These will further complicate the picture for ERP and AES vendors. Both learning management systems and enterprise portals have been affected by consolidation and/or incorporation into broader product lines (SCT acquiring Campus Pipeline, Microsoft investing in Blackboard). Portals have essentially become part of a broader product suite or become open source (uPortal). Learning management systems have broadened their capability to include more advanced knowledge management and sharing capabilities, as exemplified by the new competitor (Desire2Learn). The rising costs/increasing complexity of learning management and knowledge sharing solutions has encouraged many campus leaders to seek more affordable solutions. Open source learning management systems, knowledge repositories, and e-portfolio initiatives through SAKAI and others are likely to be a highly significant development in the higher education marketplace. What People Were Reading. The perspectives on using technology in higher education have been reflected in a number of seminal publications over the past 15 years. In the mid 1990s, Datatel sponsored the booklet, Strategic Enrollment Management, which touted the use of enterprise technology systems to manage the recruitment, admissions, and retention efforts in institutions. In 1996, Norris and Dolence wrote Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century, which described how information and communications technology could be used to fuse academic and administrative processes and transform learning experiences. In the same year, Hamel’s book, Strategy as Revolution, highlighted how leading enterprises were using strategy to revolutionize and transform themselves to establish competitive advantage in the emerging Knowledge Economy. Throughout the remainder of the 1990s, these themes were extended as higher education grappled with the implications of digitizing learning resources and experiences. Two books, Downes and Mui’s Unleashing the Killer App: Digital Strategies for Market Dominance and Evans and Wurster’s, Blown to Bits: How the New Economics of Information Technology Transforms Strategy, illuminated the potential of technology to challenge existing strategies and business models for learning. E-Business in Education by Norris and Olson explored the potential of e-business practices to change business processes in education. In 2002-2004, a number of seminal publications appeared that influenced the emergence of the new thinking incorporated in the concept of strategic institutional management ©. In 2002, ECAR published “The Promise and Performance of Enterprise Systems for Higher Education,” which chronicled the disappointing track record of ERP implementations in higher education. In plain language, most ERP implementations preserved existing processes and practices, excessively customizing the vendor’s products, and focusing on achieving transactional efficiency. Relatively few had leveraged ERP and other applications to substantially change business practices and discover new value propositions. The combination of portal technology with ERP opened the door to discovering how to reinvent processes, policies and procedures, creating new value propositions for students, faculty, and staff. A second bombshell was Nicholas Carr’s article in The Harvard Business Review on “Does IT Matter?” Carr asserted than most enterprises had failed to achieve strategic



differentiation from their investment in information technology. He contended that unless information technology was leveraged so that it delivered such differentiation, enterprises should reduce their information technology investments, treating them as a source of efficiency but not competitive advantage. His article and subsequent book provoked a firestorm of push back and cascading cycles of debate on this issue. However, his point was clear: information technology investment could not count on the iconic status it had enjoyed for many years. At the same time, other publications identified new opportunities from the shrewd deployment of information technology. Transforming e-Knowledge: A Revolution in Knowledge Sharing highlighted the potential benefits to learning enterprises from digital asset management, knowledge repositories, and new ways of experiencing knowledge. The Business Value Web introduced new techniques for maximizing the value from an institution’s resources, using information technology. Taken together, these first two graphics in Appendix IV set the contexts for higher education over the past 15 years. These were the contexts for the Common Systems decisions made by the UW System over the past 15 years. They are also the contexts that set the stage for the future challenges and opportunities the UW System faces today. Key Decision Points, UW Common Systems The third graphic in Appendix IV memorializes some of the major decision points that faced the UW System over the past 10 years. Appendix V provides even more detail, identifying key campus decisions at the campus level for legacy systems, student systems, financial systems, human resources systems, portal, wireless, and other. Economic Conditions. Wisconsin’s economic recovery and the state of public finance lagged behind many other states. But by the late 1990s, the economy and state financial resources had improved. The development and funding of Common Systems by the UW System was facilitated by a positive period in state financial support that lasted from roughly 1998 through 2001. After 2001, budget constraints have progressively squeezed academic and administrative programs at the UW System. In this context of financial exigency, Common System initiatives have come under great scrutiny.

Student Administration Systems (SAS). In the early to mid-1990s, a number of UW System campuses were considering new student system solutions. Legacy systems were developed in Eau Claire, La Crosse, and Stevens Point in the early 1990s. In 1996, UW Stout chose Datatel for student, financial, and human resources applications. Also in 1996, the OWL consortium had considered student system solutions. In 1997, four UW campuses (Madison, Oshkosh, Whitewater, and Platteville) announced their intention to purchase PeopleSoft SIS. In 1998, the UW System selected the PeopleSoft SIS and in 1999 contracted to develop MILER to facilitate implementation. Campuses were not required to participate and even those that implemented SAS were able to utilize their own definitions. Over time, a number of additional campuses have opted to migrate to PS SAS. Today, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Stevens Point, Stout, and Extension have elected not to use PeopleSoft SAS.



Shared Financial Systems (SFS). In 1996-1997, a series of controllers/business officers teams considered the needs of the UW System for shared financial systems. In 1998, a plan was prepared by the Financial Information Systems Team (FIST) and presented to the UW System Chancellors. The UW System opened negotiations with PeopleSoft and Oracle. In 1999, Core Teams began working on implementation. Campuses were not required to be full participants in SFS and five campuses (Eau Claire, La Crosse, Madison, Stevens Point, and Stout) have chosen an interfaced solution between their campus systems and SFS.

Appointment, Payroll and Benefit Systems (APBS). The decision to pursue APBS began in earnest with a set of recommendations from the Best Business Practices Subcommittee in 1997. In 1998, a final report was approved b y the Chancellors and in 1999 the RFP process was completed. Lawson was selected over PeopleSoft and SAP. Core Teams were designated in 2000 and implementation proceeded. All campuses and entities are participating in APBS. The Lawson product has been installed at FASTAR and is being rolled out to all campuses of the UW System.

Academic Systems. The UW System developed a Web-based Learning Support System (WBLSS) utility model in 1998. For the next several years, the UW System supported four learning system platforms, Lotus LearningSpace, WebCT, Web Course in a Box, and Blackboard. In 2002, a Working Group developed an RFP for an e-Learning System. In spring 2003, the contract was awarded to Desire2Learn (D2L) and in spring/summer the Learning@UW utility was created to provide hosting for D2L. The system is scheduled for full production in fall 2004. All campuses and entities are participating in D2L.

Common Systems Review Group. The Common Systems Review Group (CSRG) evolved through a variety of organizational forms in the late 1990s. By 2002, the CSRG had taken its current form, with additional representation from CIOs, Provosts, and CBOs from the campuses. The sequence of decision processes for Common Systems constituted a learning curve for the UW System. These lessons will be discussed below, in the review of insights about Common Systems derived from Interviews with System and campus leaders. Insights about Common Systems from Interviews Appendix I details the more than 50 UW System and Campus leaders who were interviewed by the Strategic Initiatives Project Team. Our synthesis focuses on the key issues and insights that emerged from these interviews. Early in most interviews, campus leaders posed the question: “What systems are included in Common Systems, and why?” Although Common Systems initiatives and the Common Systems Review Group (CSRG) had been around for a long time, there was genuine confusion about what was included under the Common Systems rubric. This was even true for some individuals who were members of the CSRG.



These conversations led to a broader conclusion: The UW System has not adequately memorialized and communicated the history, goals, and vision for the Common Systems initiatives, even today. To fill this gap, Strategic Initiatives has carefully mapped and described the history and development of Common Systems in this report, setting the stage for discussion and communication of the potential future vision for Common System initiatives. Leadership and Management. Campus and System leaders were asked to evaluate the leadership and management of Common Systems initiatives. Several clear themes emerged. Have Good Decisions Been Made? Interviewees offered substantial critique of different aspects of Common Systems decision making. Opinions often varied on the quality of particular decisions, but most interviewees offered both critique and insights on how decision making could be improved. The following ideas emerged:

• The quality of decisions and project management varied from project to project. Better decision making occurred in the presence of an excellent project champion and project manager; full and active participation by project team members having strong campus perspectives and experiences; and full participation of CIOs to provide technical and practical context and judgment.

• Specific examples of decisions that were questioned include:

� The PeopleSoft SAS product contained many gaps and weaknesses that were not adequately addressed until subsequent releases. However, given the other choices that were available to the UW System in 1997-1999, this selection of PeopleSoft was not heavily critiqued.

� Selection of Lawson for APBS was critiqued for creating the situation where UW technical staff and users must understand the approaches and systems of two ERP vendors (PeopleSoft and Lawson), rather than one (PeopleSoft, alone, if it had been selected for APBS). Some contended that the selection process did not receive/heed adequate CIO advice on this issue.

� Selection of D2L was critiqued as risky, given the nature of the company (small and new), although others thought the quality and potential of the product was worth the risk.

� The implementation of Kronos has been poorly handled, by almost unanimous agreement (including UW Madison).

� Some respondents questioned whether IAA was the best available solution.

� The overall vision for student, financial, and human resources modules, each with their own database and in some cases definitional differences between campuses, has created a solution that was not true integrated ERP. This provided a lesser capability than is available to some UW campuses with integrated legacy solutions.

• A number of leaders said that the UW System would have been better off, today, if it had

mandated participation in PS SAS and PS SFS from the very beginning and had mandated uniformity of definitions. The interviewees making this statement included some representative from institutions that had opted out of these systems.



• Some processes and decisions received consistently high reviews:

� The process for selecting D2L was applauded for its level of engagement and participation, with some trepidation being expressed about the long-term viability of the vendor;

� The development of MILER received good marks. Given the state of development of the PeopleSoft SAS product, these tools have facilitated and improved implementation on a number of campuses.

� The use of the “utility model” was given good reviews – FASTAR and

Learn@UW were cited as examples.

� System wide, site licenses and contracts for companies like Microsoft and Oracle have been highly effective.

� The selection and implementation of the System-wide Library Systems received accolades as the best example of an enterprise-wide application that had been well planned and executed. Even though this is not a UW Common System, it was cited by almost every interviewee as the gold standard. It was also recognized that this initiative enjoyed a dedicated budget and that the library community had an existing track record of collaboration.

Most respondents believed that Common Systems lacked a clear, overarching statement of vision or standards for success. Without such a well understood vision and expectations for success, evaluating decisions is difficult. Have Subsequent Common System Projects Learned from Earlier Efforts? Yes, most respondents believed that later Common System projects learned from the experiences of earlier projects, but not uniformly. The process of knowledge transfer was largely informal. No formal mechanisms exist to routinely harvest insights and share best practices, and to compare “lessons learned,” “mistakes made,” and “corrective actions taken.” Such measures are standard elements of best practices for change management at other colleges and universities and in information technology implementations in other settings.

• The process for the selection and implementation of APBS drew criticism for both the vendor selection decision and the level of involvement of CIOs in the final decision. The UW Project champion drew some criticism and project management seems to have been a continuing issue with APBS.

• However, the highly participatory and satisfying process that culminated in the selection of D2L was cited as evidence of organizational learning. This was the most recent Common System deliberation and selection process.

• Many respondents felt that the selection of Project Champions, Project Managers, and team members was uneven. Expectations, success factors, and best practices were not routinely shared. Nor were changing perspectives on the use and leveraging of information technology. The current leadership for the APBS Project has drawn strong criticism for creeping schedule and potential budget overruns.

Most interview respondents would agree with Strategic Initiatives’ conclusion that the UW System needs to substantially improve the “process” of change management associated with Common System initiatives.



Has the Initiative Been Ably Led and Managed? There was general agreement that the UW System displayed leadership in launching the Common Systems initiatives and assembling the financial resources to support them. However, these initiatives were viewed as a progressive series of individual technology infrastructure projects, which lacked a vision of truly compelling outcomes.

Lacking a clear, compelling vision for how Common Systems would be leveraged to

create important outcomes, Common Systems have failed to win the strong support of many campus leaders, especially those whose campuses had traditionally invested more in technology and been pioneers within the UW System. From the start, Common Systems was regarded as a benefit for campuses that had not invested in technology and a dubious issue for those that were technology leaders. Common Systems were seen as offering a “plain vanilla” solution rather than a superior one. Over time, this perception seems not to have changed dramatically.

It is instructive to analyze the responses of campus leaders to this question in the context

of changing perspectives on technology, as described on pages 6-10 and portrayed in the figures in Appendix IV. The selection of PS SAS, PS SFS, and Lawson APBS all were well underway or completed by 1999, when the best practices for ERP in higher education were rudimentary. At this time, ERP was seen as yielding transactional efficiency and responding to Y2K issues. It is difficult to fault UW System leadership in the early days of ERP for failing to articulate a more compelling vision that was not discovered in higher education until the 2001-2004 time frame.

However, by 2004 the perspective on technology has changed dramatically in Wisconsin

and nationally. The impact of the Internet, portalization, and Webification of services has created new opportunities and expectations. Today, institutional leaders across higher education are exploring new ways of fusing and leveraging academic and administrative applications. The campus leaders we interviewed believe that Common Systems must discover a vision that will create sufficient value to justify continued investment. Financial Incentives and Management. The UW System has funded Common Systems from a variety of sources. Some funding came from central revenue resources controlled by UWSA while other funding came from campus resources. An initial UWSA central reserve of $9M was used to launch the Common System initiatives, but was quickly depleted. Centrally, UWSA has allocated about $5.4M annually from the tuition revenue stream to fund Common Systems. Another $2M annually comes from the excess tuition generated over the budgeted amount for each campus. In FY04, the Common Systems Review Group determined that program revenue (PR) funded operations should also be sharing in the funding of Common Systems. A chargeback to PR-funded operation yields about $1.4M per year. In addition, campus funds are allocated to portions of Common Systems through payments for software maintenance fees, MILER consulting services, and a variety of other mechanisms. These resources have been allocated to campuses to fund Common System participation through a variety of mechanisms. Strategic Initiatives asked campus leaders their opinion on the financial incentives and arrangements for Common Systems. In reality, the financial arrangements for each Common System initiative have been somewhat different, so strict comparison is difficult. However, most campus leaders took issue with some aspects of the financial incentive/management of Common Systems.

What Is Your Assessment of the Financial Incentives/Arrangements? The financial arrangements/incentives for the PeopleSoft SAS and SFS initiatives received harshest criticism. These were the first Common Systems initiatives and confronted the opposition of leading technology campuses who felt they had achieved better solutions than would be available through Common Systems. Moreover, campuses were not “required” to participate and resources were provided both to campuses that elected to participate and those that sought other solutions. Not surprisingly this led to resentments and differing perspectives on the fairness of



resource allocations, in spite of the best efforts of System staff. Interviewees who suggested that the System would have been better off in mandating participation suggested that financial incentives should only go to institutions that agreed to participate in Common Systems.

A significant problem with the financial arrangements/incentives for Common Systems

was the perception that the budget estimates for Common System projects were unrealistic and that cost overruns would simply “come out of campus funds” directly or indirectly. This correlated with criticisms, already mentioned, about the uneven quality of project management and planning associated with different Common System initiatives. These concerns continue until today, in spite of progress made by the Common Systems Review Group in demanding greater accountability and transparency in Common Systems project planning and budgeting.

Some financial arrangements were consistently lauded. For example, the evolving cost-

sharing arrangement for MILER received high marks. Common Systems initiatives that involved all campuses, such as APBS and D2L, received far less critique on the subject of funding disparities. But APBS still received critique for its planning, budgeting, and project management. Have the Financial Incentives Helped Develop the Commitment of the Campuses? Frankly, most campus leaders did not feel “incentivized” by the progression of financial arrangements for Common Systems. They expressed variations on the theme that a clear and compelling value proposition for Common Systems held much greater potential for building commitment than financial incentives. Do These Financial Arrangements and Incentives Need to Be Changed in the Future? The campus leaders agreed that future financial arrangements for Common Systems needed to reflect several principles: 1) realistic, transparent, honest planning and budgeting, 2) accountability, and 3) even-handed treatment for all campuses. Many of these changes are being currently pursued by the Common Systems Review Group in its efforts to oversee the implementation of D2L and APBS.

Changes in the technology environment and in the level of available financial resources have created more exacting standards for Common System initiatives. The next generation of financial arrangements should reflect this new reality. Next Important Challenges for Common Systems. The most obvious and immediate challenges confronting Common Systems are to fix the issues in this report relating to visioning, planning, project and change management, and financing addressed in this report. This is priority #1. Indeed, the Common Systems Initiative is at a crucial crossroads. Until some of the issues with project management, believable budgeting, and change management are addressed satisfactorily, crafting a future vision for Common Systems will be impossible. In addition, there are several specific challenges. Some of these are immediate; others require action in the longer term:

• The development of a next generation network is imperative.

• The Common Systems Interoperability Architecture Working Group (CSIAWG) is framing interoperability challenges and opportunities that will be fundamental to the next generation of Common System solutions. Interoperability needs to be part of the emerging vision for Common Systems.

• Portalization is being pursued in a fragmented fashion within the UW System, but may be beyond the point where a Common Systems approach is easily fashioned. While



particular campuses are excelling, the UW System as a whole is lagging behind many institutions and some other public systems in their use of portal technology.

• E-Portfolios, Mobile Computing, and Digital Asset Management are issues that are being undertaken by individual campuses and could warrant a coordinated approach.

• Budget Planning options are being considered by a working group and a Grants Management System is under evaluation by UW Madison.

Most interviewees felt that the next generation of Common System initiatives, whatever they may be, will face greater scrutiny and accountability. Institutional Plans for Leveraging Technology and Common Systems. We asked the campus leaders their visions for leveraging technology to create new experiences for students, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders. The following selected examples illustrate the visions and initiatives of individual campuses:

• UW Stout decided about five years ago to become a digital campus. They provide laptop computers for all student and faculty. EScholar (their learning management system) and their portal (also homegrown) are important parts of this. They are considering several e-portfolio products. They also have pioneered some creative ways of engaging adjuncts in the life of the campus.

• Each campus has representatives on the Learning Technology Development Council, Information Technology Management Council, Council of UW Libraries, and Educational Technology Media Council. These groups can be vehicles for stimulating innovation on each campus and sharing ideas across campuses.

• UW Milwaukee is counting on its portal to be essential to leveraging academic/

administrative resources. There was substantial emphasis on using D2L to foster new ways of teaching and learning.

• UW Madison is well into portalization and the leveraging of technology to transform

teaching and learning experiences. UW Madison participates actively with the CIC (Big 10 institutions plus the University of Chicago) in collaborative courses and academic ventures, purchasing, shared resources, and cost sharing initiatives. UW Madison is also doing a DSpace pilot for a knowledge repository.

• UW Colleges has 1,000 sections of courses online and plans to make extensive use of

D2L. UW Colleges offers an online associate degree but an online baccalaureate is not available.

Almost all of these visions and initiatives focused on the individual campus. Cross-registration of students on different campuses is not as advanced in practice at UW as it is at other systems of public institutions that have invested considerable effort in working out the policy, schedule, and articulation issues necessary to support concurrent registration at different campuses. At the campus level, there has been little serious discussion about how Common Systems could play a part in leveraging academic and administrative resources across campus boundaries. This relates to the lack of a compelling vision for how Common Systems could be used to create new value propositions for students in a system of institutions.



Insights from Other Systems of Public Institutions Strategic Initiatives conducted a high-level review of the “Common Systems” initiatives undertaken by other systems of public universities in Georgia, North Carolina, and Minnesota. In these cases we were looking for several distinguishing features that could be helpful to the University of System:

1. Successes in creating integrated Common Systems platforms, with strong project planning and management;

2. Experience in leveraging those technologies to create new experiences for students, faculty, and staff that leveraged resources across the system of institutions;

3. Strong leadership and initiative management;

4. Moving beyond the development of technology infrastructure to use technology to reshape business practices, and to use technology to achieve greater strategic alignment of the university with its stakeholders and publics.

University System of Georgia (USG). The USG encompasses 34 institutions, including research universities, regional universities, state universities, state colleges, and two-year institutions.

Fusion of Academic and Administrative Technologies. The Information Technology resources of the university are managed by a Vice Chancellor/CIO for Information and Instructional Technology, who reports to the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academics and Fiscal Affairs. The CIO’s portfolio includes advanced learning systems, enterprise applications, enterprise infrastructures, libraries, and strong strategic planning and project management resources. Commitment to Common Systems. The USG has strongly committed to Common Systems, all of which fall under the purview of the Vice Chancellor/CIO. The Enterprise Application Services (EAS) organization supports critical information technology projects on behalf of the University System. These projects consist of enterprise-wide projects as well as internal projects. Services include Project and Support Services, Systems Development, and Technology Services.

• Banner Student Information Systems. Georgia BEST supports the Banner Student Information System and the Georgia Enhancements that provide for standard administrative practices for student and financial aid services.

• PeopleSoft Financials. The GeorgiaFIRST project includes the deployment and support of the PeopleSoft suite of software modules for the Financials including Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, General Ledger, Asset Management, Budget Preparation, and



Purchasing.

• PeopleSoft Human Resources. The GeorgiaFIRST project includes the deployment and support of the PeopleSoft suite of software modules for the Human Resources Management System.

• USG by the Numbers (Data Warehouse). USG by the Numbers is an information repository available to all constituents of the USG including the Board of Regents, the Office of the Chancellor, member institutions' administration, faculty, students, Federal Agencies, the Governor's office, the State Legislature, State agencies, and the public at large.

• University System Office Applications (USOA). Applications are used for data collection and reporting as required for decision-making. Legacy applications are being replaced by the USG Data Warehouse. These applications support the following offices/functions and capabilities:

� Office of Facilities – Capital Projects � Office of Strategic Research and Analysis – Curriculum Inventory Reporting,

Financial Aid Reporting System, Student Information Reporting System � USOE Web Applications – EAS portal, FTU, Learning Support, Georgia EASY,

eHOPE, and Continuing Education � Business Practices – including USOE Business processes and Ga BEST Banner.

Strategic Planning for Information and Instructional Technologies. USG has developed a comprehensive strategic plan and planning process for information and instructional technology that establishes a firm, results-oriented technology planning discipline for the System. This planning process links the planning efforts of the Board of Regents, OIIT, and campuses. It guides the USG in making effective long-term technology-related plans and decisions.

Lessons for UW System Common Systems from USG. USG’s commitment to Common Systems is evident. It has made a substantial investment in Common Systems infrastructure, applications, and the organizational and human resources to support it, at the enterprise level. USG appears to have made greater progress in the three elements of Strategic Institutional Management © – technology infrastructure, business processes, and strategic alignment – than has the UW System. USG would be an important continuing benchmark for the UW System.

Additional Resources on USG. Appendix VI contains additional resources describing the USG’s commitment to Common Systems, including Weblinks to extensive online resources.

University of North Carolina System (UNC). The UNC System encompasses 16 universities, including two research universities, a school of the arts, and 13 comprehensive universities. The planning for a more unified information technology resource began in 1998 when the newly appointed UNC President, Molly Broad, and the 16 chancellors began discussing the need for a more united and strategic view of information technology. They identified the need for funding and a strategic information technology plan to develop the resources necessary to carry out the UNC vision of using information technology as the way for transforming the intuitions into more global and competitive places for learning in the 21st century. Up to this point, the 16 campuses acted as a loosely coupled federation when it came to making key information technology decisions. After conducting an assessment of the requirements of the 16 campuses, a strategy was defined that outlined recommendations and resources to better align and assist the campuses to in making key technology decisions.



A New Technology Organization. In January 2000, the Office of The President established a Division of Information Resources. New committees and programs were established with common goals, leadership, and resources. Roles and responsibilities were established and options on how to participate were outlined. This new structure has allowed for many of the institutions to share in the planning as well as the benefits of doing projects together that may not have had the resources to do so on their own.

Strategy for Information Technology. UNC developed its information technology

strategy after conducting a thorough assessment of the common and unique needs of the 16 campuses. The information technology strategy is not a set of directives that all of the campuses must follow in developing their information technology capabilities. Rather, it is a menu of recommendations for making the most of finite resources and capturing maximum effectiveness of information technology-based programs and services.

An in-depth look at the university's information technology strategic planning process, recommendations, and action plans is available in A Roadmap to the Future: A Report to Faculty, Staff, Students, Trustees and Friends of the 16 Campuses. A review of our progress is documented in the 2000-2001 IT Strategy Update, 2001-2002 IT Update and the 2002-2003 IT Update.

UNC Shared Services Alliance ("Alliance"). The Alliance is the organizational home

for administrative systems, provides a forum for UNC's 16 campuses to explore new and better ways to collaborate on administrative information technology issues. The Alliance spearheads a number of projects to bring new applications to UNC's campuses.

Foremost among the Alliance's goals was to Web-enable a range of common student services to enhance and improve administration for students, faculty, and staff. Campuses participating in this collaboration, known as Web Enabling Student Services, implemented the first phase of online services in December 2000 and a second phase in fall 2001.

Another important focus for the Alliance was development of a Prospective Student Portal that can be customized by UNC campuses to meet unique needs. The portal was conceived to organize information that is important to potential or recently admitted students and interactively guide them through a host of campus resources. Unfortunately, the full, planned functionality of the portal has not been realized.

To avoid duplication of resources and leverage expertise within the university, the Alliance (through its procurement committee) contracts with campuses for products and services when possible and works in conjunction with Coordinated Technology Management on projects requiring outside vendors.

Alliance Advisory Board. Each of the 16 campuses is a member of the Shared Services Alliance and has voting rights on the Alliance Advisory Board. Projects and services in which full members participate are initially funded by the Alliance, while associate members participate in and fund only those projects and services they deem most valuable to their campuses. The 11 full members are ASU, AT&T, ECSU, FSU, NCCU, NCSA, UNCA, UNCP, UNCW, WCU, and WSSU. The five associate members are ECU, NCSU, UNCC, UNC-CH, and UNCG. Representing the Office of the President are three ex-officio members appointed from academic affairs, finance, and information resources.

The Banner Project. Responding to the need for increased service requirements and operational efficiencies on each campus and across the system as a whole, the Alliance designed a decision-making process to guide the university's search for a new enterprise system for administrative functions. In June 2002, 13 campuses united to move to SCT’s Banner enterprise



system to streamline administrative services in five areas: advancement, finance, financial aid, human resources, and student service.

Lessons for UW Common Systems. The top leadership at the UNC System has been

driving since 1998 to take more of an enterprise approach to the development and leveraging of information technology resources. UNC seems to have placed a greater emphasis on alignment of technology resources with enterprise-wide strategy. Their focus has been on developing Common Systems infrastructure and launching initiatives that could leverage the resources of the UNC System. The Web Enabling Student Services and Prospective Student Portal projects are cases in point. The Alliance is an interesting organizational mechanism enabling differing levels of involvement for different types of campuses. It is worthy of further observation.

Additional Resources on UNC. Appendix VI contains additional resources describing

the USG’s commitment to Common Systems, including Weblinks to extensive online resources.

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU). The MnSCU is the fifth largest system of institutions, by enrollment, in the nation. It includes 34 institutions, including comprehensive universities, technical colleges, and community colleges. The University of Minnesota System is separate from MnSCU. Common Systems in a State of Development. MnSCU has a lean System Office organizational structure for information technology, which is more like the UW System than either UNC or USG. The system is running a legacy student records system and is in the process of evaluating its next generation ERP solution. MnSCU is implementing the D2L learning management platform, is advanced in its MnOnline e-learning activities, has an active e-portfolio initiative, and a portal initiative considering campus-level and enterprise-level solutions. Seamless Experiences for Learners. MnSCU has distinguished itself in its commitment to creating “seamless experiences” for students. Working groups have been resolving differences between schedules, calendars, policies, and procedures at different campuses so students can easily take courses from various campuses simultaneously. This has required careful attention to tuition sharing and other practical considerations. MnSCU has stated its strategic intent to become the nation’s top public online university. It has made significant strides with MnOnline, its e-portfolio capabilities, and the coming combination of “seamless” and portalization. However, the seamless experience not only builds online learning, it contributes to a superior experience for all students, including students who wish to take a “blend” of learning experiences while in residence at a traditional campus. Lessons for UW Common Systems. There are significant differences in the cultures of MnSCU and the UW System and the collection of institutions and programs represented in each. Nevertheless, the UW System could learn from MnSCU’s seamless initiative and its ambition to improve the experience of learners who want to concurrently engage the learning resources and experiences at multiple campuses. Currently, cross-registration is a relatively minor practice at the UW System (about 5%, we are told). There are substantial practical barriers, including a tuition scale that rises linearly up to 12 hours, plateaus between 12 and 18 hours, and then rises after that point. The leadership at most UW campuses seem not to have imagined how they could leverage resources and experiences from other campuses, but this could be an important issue in the future.

Additional Resources on MnSCU. Appendix VI contains additional resources describing the USG’s commitment to Common Systems, including Weblinks to extensive online resources.



III. The Future of Leveraging Common Systems In the preceding section, Strategic Initiatives synthesized three distinct sets of insights on the past and present development of Common Systems:

• Perspectives on UW Common Systems drawn from interviews with UW System and campus leaders and a review of background reports and materials;

• Insights on national perspectives on technology infrastructures, applications, and practice, drawn from the books, articles and reports cited in Appendix II; and

• Insights from three systems of public higher education institutions that have pursued Common Systems initiatives.

In this section, Strategic Initiatives takes a step further, suggesting future potential for leveraging Common Systems and the implications for the UW System. Strategic Institutional Management All three of our lenses – the UW System, national developments, and other leading systems – suggest that campus leaders are articulating the need for a new approach, which Strategic Initiatives and Quantum Thinking have labeled Strategic Institutional Management ©. In our judgment, current and future best practice will follow this path, both at individual campuses and systems of institutions; however, systems face some distinctive challenges and opportunities.

Technology Infrastructure. After decades of treating campus information technology as a series of infrastructure development projects, leaders across higher education have begun to raise their sights. They are asking the tough questions about how the new infrastructure can be used to reshape and reinvent processes and practices, and how institutional strategy can be realigned, enabled by new technologies. Business Processes. It has become a truism that institutions cannot afford to continue to invest lavishly in information technology unless the new technologies are used to reinvent processes, enhance productivity, and create new value propositions for learners, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders. Moreover, the academic and administrative processes that are being reinvented come together through portalized and Webified services and experiences. In the future, administrative and academic Common Systems must be used to drive innovation and reinvention of processes that affect the heart of the learner experience and desired outcomes.



The combination of portals, ERPs, academic enterprise systems (learning management, e-portfolios, and the like), and digital asset management, fused through networking, provides special opportunities for systems of institutions. Leading-edge systems of institutions are exploring the issue: How can we create seamless processes, policies, and experiences that enable learners to engage resources from across the system, concurrently?

Strategic Alignment. The debate around the question, “Does IT Matter?” over the past few year has led to a simple conclusion: continuing, significant investment in information technology cannot be justified unless it provides strategic differentiation (competitive advantage) and enables institutions or systems of institutions to reshape their strategy, serving their stakeholders in new and better ways. Systems of public institutions have always defined their raison d’etre in terms of cost savings, efficiencies, and possibly creating a critical mass of academic and administrative resources through a system of campuses. However, a new question looms for today and tomorrow: Can a system of public higher education institutions create a new set of strategic alignments that leverage the resources of the campuses in ways that have never before been possible, creating new experiences, value propositions, and cost savings?

Potential for the UW System The original goal of this project was to engage several mixed groups of academic and administrative thought leaders to brainstorm about how Common Systems could be leveraged to create new experiences for learners, faculty, and staff. These conversations would have generated scenarios about the future and “stretch goals.” Due to scheduling issues and the time requirements to assess the state of Common Systems, these mixed group conversations did not occur. However, exploratory conversations did occur during the campus interviews and working sessions with the Common Systems Review Group. These discussions explored ways of leveraging academic and administrative Common Systems



to create new experiences for learners, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders at the campus level and at the system level. A number of promising ideas have emerged and are offered here as stimuli for further discussions. Rather than expressing these as stretch goals, they are presented as questions:

• What would be the advantages to learners, faculty, and staff if each and every campus provided a portal-based experience to support learning and administrative activities?

• What would be the benefits of providing students, faculty, and staff the capacity to solve many of their own problems (the so-called self-service model) using portal-based access to administrative and academic support systems?

• What would be the advantages to learners at the UW System if they could seamlessly and concurrently register for courses from any UW campus?

• How would students in residence at UW campuses like to broaden their experiences

beyond traditional classroom instruction?

• What would be the benefits from sharing insights in new approaches to teaching and learning through communities of practices collecting best practices from across the UW System? These could include new insights and best practices on cognition and perpetual learning.

• What range of blended learning experiences (physical, virtual, and all permutations)

would students want to experience?

• Is it possible to reduce the marginal cost of online learning experiences to the point where tuition could fully fund online learning? If so, would this enable the UW System to grow online enrollments of existing offerings even during periods of financial exigency?

• What would be the advantages to learners if online learning were provided like an

electricity grid, where excess capacity was built into the system and could flow to wherever it was needed on the grid (at a price point where the price of tuition was greater than the marginal cost of online learning)?

• How could the UW System use online learning to export learning experiences to learners

and institutions in other states, especially those in the West and South experiencing a demographic tidal wave?

• How could the UW System make it possible for baccalaureate-level learners to graduate

in four years, assuring access to the courses they need, when they need them?

• How could the UW System enable students in good standing to register for and book a full course schedule a year in advance?

• Could students in metropolitan areas benefit from a block schedule that only required

them to come to campus one day a week? Two nights a week?

• How can the UW System increase the percentage of its citizens who achieve a four-year degree and decrease the percentage of students who fail to graduate once enrolled?

• What would be the advantages to the UW System and the people of Wisconsin if every school, library, community center, health care facility, and corporate office were a



gateway to all of the resources of the UW System, available seamlessly?

• What would be the advantages to faculty and researchers at UW campuses of access to a repository of knowledge objects assembled from all of the research and learning objects developed by faculty?

• What would be the advantages to students and faculty if knowledge bases for courses were developed by teams of faculty, instructional development staff, and knowledge management staff?

• In its collaborative activities through the CIC, how could UW Madison create derivative benefits for the other campuses of the System? Could a CIC-like collaboratory be formed to create and share academic materials, resources, and programs among like-minded UW campuses?

• Could existing collaborative degree programs be given an added boost through portalization and adaptation of a community of practice model?

• What would be the advantage of creating “communities of practice” that brought adjunct faculty into the life of their institutions? Could these communities be used to make adjunct resources available across the UW System, including to remote locations?

• Could portalized communities of practice be used to leverage existing campus councils and teams such as the Learning Technology Council, Information Technology Management Council, Council of UW Library, and Educational Technology Media Council?

• Can communities of practice be utilized in administrative support areas?

• Could Common Systems and portalization be used to encourage the development of “shared service” solutions involving multiple campuses of the UW System?

The list could go on. The fact is, Common Systems can be the basis for a new generation of shared services, solutions, and experiences that provide substantial value to the stakeholders of the UW System. But Common Systems will only succeed with the proper vision, leadership, and financial support.



IV. Recommendations and Next Steps

Strategic Initiatives offers the following recommendations for actions to enhance the development and leveraging of Common Systems at the UW System. 1. Achieving Sound Financial Planning and Project Management

Common Systems initiatives have some important long-term and future issues to explore and resolve. Their immediate task, however, is to stabilize the existing Common Systems projects, and achieve sound financial management and project management. The Common Systems Review Group seems to have made progress on this front over the past six months, achieving more satisfactory project reporting and accountability. However, since the Strategic Initiatives’ last working session on campus, it was announced that the go-live date for the APBS implementation has been extended and there are cost overruns. Project Management Issues. Our Project Team is not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the current APBS situation to prescribe a precise solution, nor is that our charge. However, our review did reveal that many campus leaders felt that APBS demonstrated the unevenness of project planning/management associated with Common Systems initiatives. Best practices, lessons learned, and the project management skills of others in the UW System were not adequately engaged, based on our accounts. Quick and Decisive Resolution. This APBS situation must be addressed quickly and decisively. The problems should be honestly analyzed and addressed, letting the chips fall where they may. The Common Systems Review Group should use this opportunity to establish an approach for dealing with project variance that sets the standard for future accountability. If this problem is not resolved in such a judicious manner, it jeopardizes the future of Common Systems. Committing to Better Quality Assurance and Change Management. As part of this resolution, UW System leadership must make a greater commitment to quality assurance, change management, and effective project planning, management, and leadership. Several of the other systems of public institutions appear to have made a greater commitment (human resources, formal structures, and processes) to effective project planning/management than the UW System. Further conversations with these systems should attempt to learn from their successes. 2. Planning for the Next Common System Challenges As discussed, top priority goes to addressing and resolving management issues with existing initiatives. After that, one immediate challenge emerges, plus several that will require attention soon. The Next Generation Network Must Be Expeditiously Established. The approach for planning, budgeting, and managing the next generation network should be a textbook for the principles of transparency, accountability, and honesty espoused by members of the Common System Review Group. Next Round of Issues. The CSRG should be considering the following issues:

• The issue of full participation in PS SAS and PS SFS should be reviewed. The UW System would be in a stronger position today if it had mandated participation in the early days of Common Systems.

• Portalization is being pursued in a fragmented fashion within the UW System. While

particular campuses are excelling, the UW System as a whole is lagging behind many



institutions and some other public systems in their use of portal technology as a core element. It may be too late for a single, coordinated approach, but an open source-based solution that could be made available to campuses without a portal initiative could be viable.

• E-Portfolios, Mobile Computing, and Digital Asset Management are issues that are being undertaken by individual campuses and could warrant a coordinated approach.

• The CSIAWG is framing interoperability challenges and opportunities that will be fundamental to the next generation of Common System solutions. Interoperability needs to be part of the emerging vision for Common Systems.

• Options for a Budget Planning System are being considered by a working group and a Grants Management System is under evaluation by UW Madison.

In the judgment of the Strategic Initiatives Project Team, the UW System needs to place greater emphasis on portalization and the leveraging of portalization, academic enterprise systems, ERP, and digital knowledge assets at the campus and System levels. The Next Generation of Common Systems Will Be Different. The first generation of Common Systems projects involved filling obvious gaps with a series of infrastructure development projects. This next generation of issues requires greater sophistication and a clear understanding of how Common Systems can be leveraged. The impact of interoperability and open source may require adjustments in direction and philosophy. The next generation of Common Systems also will require greater involvement of faculty and academic leadership. 3. Renewing the Common Systems Review Group The Common Systems Review Group has evolved its role and membership over time. It needs to continue this evolution and renew its commitment and approach. Effective Project Oversight and Articulation of Strategy and Outcomes. The Common Systems Review Group should build on its role in assuring effective project oversight and management. Its focus in the future needs to place greater emphasis on assuring that a strong, clearly articulated strategy exists for developing Common Systems and leveraging them to achieve an understood set of outcomes and benefits. Planning for and Articulating the Future. The Common Systems Review Group needs to work with UW System leadership to frame and renew its role. It has the potential to play a critical role for the UW System in planning for and articulating the potentials from Common Systems. 4. Leveraging Technology to Create New Value Propositions The UW System’s Common Systems initiatives should move beyond technology infrastructure development and use information technology to reshape business processes and achieve strategic alignment of its programs and experiences with the needs of its stakeholders. Over time, new value propositions will be discovered by individual campuses and by the UW as a system of public institutions. New Value Propositions for a System of Institutions. The UW System can benefit from the examples set by the University System of Georgia, the University of North Carolina System, and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. These systems of public institutions are building the enterprise-wide infrastructures, policies, and shared services that will enable the creation of new value propositions in an expeditionary manner over the next few years. These new value propositions will come from the ability of learners, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders to share



knowledge resources, and concurrently experience offerings and resources from all over the system. These efforts will also streamline the learner experience and enhance the quality and amenity of campus services. Common Infrastructures and Enabling Policies, Voluntary Collaborations. Systems of public institutions can foster collaborations and new value propositions through establishing Common Systems, enabling policies, and “seamless” articulation. This architecture will stimulate resource sharing and collaboration. However, most of the collaborative ventures occurring in systems of public institutions in the future will be voluntary, involving groups of several institutions, collections of programs in a particular discipline, or other self-selecting groups. 5. Engaging Faculty and Other Key Stakeholders The next generation of Common Systems and leveraging existing Common Systems will require greater engagement of faculty and academic leadership. Common Systems has moved from an administrative systems infrastructure initiative to a mechanism for fusing administrative and academic applications and solutions. Few forums have explored the notion that Common Systems could be used to create genuinely new experiences for students and faculty and new value propositions for a system of institutions. Future Scenarios Framed by the Faculty. Conversations about scenarios and stretch goals for leveraging technology need to engage faculty and academic leadership at early stages to have any credibility. Using Campus-Level Mechanisms to Engage Stakeholders. There are a variety of mechanisms for engaging different groups of stakeholders on these issues. Each campus has representation on the Learning Technology Development Council, Information Technology Management Council, Council of UW Libraries, and Educational Technology Media Council. These groups can be vehicles for discussing innovation, leveraging technology, and new value propositions. 6. Leadership in Strategic Institutional Management With the opportunity afforded by the selection of a new President, the UW System has a golden opportunity to renew, reaffirm, and enhance its commitment to leadership in information technology. Articulate a Clear Strategy for Information Technology. Common Systems and other technologies have been a central element in the leadership strategies in other systems of public universities. If the UW System leadership chooses to articulate a clear, strong strategy for information technology, it is evident that its focus should be on strategic institutional management, not just infrastructure development. Effectively Practice Change Management. The leadership of the UW System and its institutions need to provide the vision, resources, and practices necessary to more effectively manage the process of Common Systems planning, management, and implementation. New Value Propositions from a System of Public Institutions. What does it mean to be a system of public institutions? What are the advantages and the value propositions? What is the learner’s perspective on the value of a system of public institutions? Advances in information technologies and perspectives on how technology can be leveraged have made new answers to these questions possible. Financial exigency has made new answers and a new spirit of accountability essential.

Submitted by

��

��

��

October 25, 2004


Appendices 10/25/04 i

Assessing and Leveraging Common Systems Table of Contents – Appendices

Page Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix I: Interviews and Meetings with UW System/Campus Leaders .................................................................................................... 2 Appendix II: Resources Used in Project ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 UW System Reports and Materials ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Books, Articles, and Reports ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Materials from Other States ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Appendix III: Participation in Common Systems, UW Campuses................................................................................................................. 8 1. Participation in Common Systems ................................................................................................................................................ 8 2. Participation in Other Systemwide Technology Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 9 Appendix IV. Changing Perspectives on Technology.................................................................................................................................. 10 The Emergence of Strategic Institutional Management ................................................................................................................... 10 Economic Conditions, Technology Providers, Seminal Publications............................................................................................. 11 UW Common Systems........................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Appendix V: Key Decision Points at UW Campuses.................................................................................................................................... 13 1. Legacy Systems............................................................................................................................................................................ 13 2. Student Systems ........................................................................................................................................................................... 14 3. Financial Systems......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 4. Human Resources Systems ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 5. Portal.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 6. Wireless ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 7. Other .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Appendix VI: Background Materials on Other Systems of Public Institutions........................................................................................... 20

1. University System of Georgia ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 2. University of North Carolina System ........................................................................................................................................... 27


Appendices 10/25/04 1

Introduction

This packet of Appendices supports Strategic Initiative’s report, “Assessing and Leveraging Common Systems.” The report and appendices should be read simultaneously. The Appendices contain many tables and graphics that accompany the text in the report, and are critical to full understanding.



Appendix I: Interviews and Meetings with UW System/Campus Leaders

Date/Site of Interviews/Meetings

Participants April 14, 2004 - Telephone UW System Staff

Donald Norris, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Deborah Durcan, VC Finance; Edward Meachen, CIO; Lorie Docken, Sr. Library Consultant; OLIT; Bob Jokisch, Special Assistant to the Sr. VP for Academic Affairs

May 3, 2004 - Stout UW Stout

Donald Norris and Anne Keehn, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Charles Sorenson, Chancellor; Diane Moen, VC for Administration and Student Life ; Joe Brown CIO

May 3, 2004 – Eau Claire UW Eau Claire

Donald Norris and Anne Keehn, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Donald Mash, Chancellor; Andrew Soll, VC Business and Student Services; Jim Lowe, CIO

May 12, 2004 - Milwaukee UW Milwaukee

Donald Norris, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Jon Wanat, Provost; Monica Rimai, Interim VC for Administrative Affairs; Eva Barczyk, Interim Director of Libraries; Joe Brown, CIO; Robert Colosanto, Campus Learning Center; Michael Rupp, CFO; Karen Gundrum, Controller; Bruce Maas, Project Manager; John McCarragher, Deputy CIO

May 12, 2004 – Green Bay UW Green Bay

Donald Norris, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Tim Sewall, Assoc. VC Academic Affairs; Chuck Wiseman, Controller; Kathy Pletcher, Assoc. Provost Information Systems; Sue Kiehn, Assoc. VC/Dean of Students

May 13, 2004 - Oshkosh UW Oshkosh

Donald Norris, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Thomas Sonnleitner, VC Administrative Services; John Berens, Assoc. VC Enrollment/Info Services;

June 2, 2004 - Madison Common Systems Interoperability Architecture Working Group (CSIAWG)

Donald Norris and Anne Keehn, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Nina Boss, CSIAWG Rep, UW Madison; Mark Rank, CSIAWG Rep, UW Platteville

June 2, 2004 - Madison UW Madison

Donald Norris and Anne Keehn, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Peter Spear, Provost; Darrell Bazzell, VC Administration; Annie Sunden, CIO

June 3, 2004 - Madison UW Colleges

Donald Norris and Anne Keehn, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Margaret Cleek, Provost/VC; Richard Cleek, CIO; Steven Wildeck, VC Administrative Services

June 3, 2004 - Madison Common Systems Review Group

Donald Norris and Anne Keehn, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. John Berens, Assoc. VC Enrollment/Info Services, UW-Oshkosh; Dick Cleek, Assistant Vice Chancellor for IT, UW Colleges; Greg Diemer, Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs, UW-Stevens Point; Elizabeth Hitch, Provost/VCAA, UW-La Crosse; Ron Kraemer, Director, Information Systems, UW Extension; Mike Rupp, CFO, UW-Milwaukee; Bob Sedlak, Provost/VCAA, UW-Stout; Peter Spear, Provost/VCAA, UW-Madison. UW System: Debbie Durcan, Vice President, Finance; Edward Meachen, CIO; Robert Jokisch, Special Assistant to the Sr. VP for Academic Affairs, Jeff Arnold, Controller; Lorie Docken, Sr. Library Consultant.



Date/Site of

Interviews/Meetings

Participants June 3, 2004 - Madison UW System Staff

Donald Norris and Anne Keehn, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Cora Marrett, Sr. VP Academic Affairs; Vice President, Finance; Edward Meachen, CIO; Robert Jokisch, Special Assistant to the Sr. VP for Academic Affairs

June 21, 2004 - Telephone UW La Crosse

Donald Norris, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Ron Losteter, VC for Administration and Finance; Elizabeth Hitch, Provost/VCAA; Sharon Radtke, Controller; John Tillman CIO

June 24, 2004 - Telephone UW Stevens Point

Donald Norris, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. Virginia Helm, Provost/VCAA; Greg Diemer, VC Business Affairs; Dave Dumke, Interim CIO

July 15, 2004 - Madison Working Session, Common Systems Group Review Group

Donald Norris, and Anne Keehn, Strategic Initiatives, Inc. John Berens, Assoc. VC Enrollment/Info Services, UW-Oshkosh; Dick Cleek, Assistant Vice Chancellor for IT, UW Colleges; Greg Diemer, Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs, UW-Stevens Point; Jim Freer, Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs, UW-Whitewater; Sue Hammersmith, Provost/VCAA UW-Green Bay; Elizabeth Hitch, Provost/VCAA, UW-La Crosse; Ron Kraemer, Director, Information Systems, UW Extension; Andy Richards, Director, Business Services, UW-Milwaukee; Annie Stunden, CIO, UW-Madison; Bob Sedlak, Provost/VCAA, UW-Stout; Marcia Bromberg. UW System: Cora Marrett, Sr. VP Academic Affairs; Debbie Durcan, Vice President, Finance; Edward Meachen, CIO; Robert Jokisch, Special Assistant to the Sr. VP for Academic Affairs, Jeff Arnold, Controller; Lorie Docken, Sr. Library Consultant.



Appendix II: Resources Used in Project

UW System Reports and Materials 1. University of Wisconsin System. Common Systems Funding Summary.

Factsheet, May 2004.

2. Allen E. Guskin. “Dealing with the Future Now: Principles for Creating a Vital Campus in a Climate of Restricted Resources.” Project on the Future of Higher Education.

3. University of Wisconsin System. Administrative Systems Acquisition Process and Common Systems Cost/Benefit Analysis, Fact Sheet, Spring 2004.

4. University of Wisconsin System. FASTAR – The UW Facility for Shared Technology and Resources. Fact Sheet, January 23, 2002.

5. University of Wisconsin System. Our Common Systems Future: Issues, Priorities, Challenges, and Opportunities. Fact Sheet, Spring 2004.

6. “Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Lab,” Website materials.

7. “WiscNet: Connecting People and Strategies,” Web site materials.

8. University of Wisconsin System, Office of Learning and Information Technology. UW System Information Technology Plans. 12/30/2003.

9. University of Wisconsin Libraries. Strategic Directions for 2003-2005. 10. WiscNet. Connecting People. Connecting Strategies. 2004. 11. University of Wisconsin System. 2003-2004 Fact books. 12. UW System. FY 03-04 Systems Shared Costs. 6/3/2004.

13. Common Systems Review Group. Sources and Uses of Systemwide

Resources. 6/3/2004

14. Common Systems Review Group. Common Systems Funding Uses.

PowerPoints, 6/3/2004. 15. Wisconsin Education & Research Optical CyberInfrastructure (WEROC).

“Initial Principles and Strategies,” May 21, 2004. 16. Common Systems Interoperability Architecture Working Group (CSIAWG),

Interoperability Challenges and Opportunities at the University of Wisconsin. Report and Recommendations. May 26, 2004.

17. Mark Rank, CSIAWG. Integration Challenges and Opportunities: A Future

for UW-System. PowerPoints, 6/3/2004. 18. University of Wisconsin Collaborative Programs. Collaborative Degree

Programs. Factsheet. 11/28/03.

19. Summary of System Origins – APBS, UW Shared Financials, PeopleSoft Student Administration, Funding Common Administrative and Academic Systems, Factsheet, 6/15/2004.



Books, Articles, and Reports Alexander, Bryan. “Going Nomadic: Mobile Learning in Higher Education”, EDUCAUSE Review, September/October, 2004, pp. 28-35. Arenson, Karen W. “Public College Tuition Increases Prompt Concern and Legislation,” The New York Times, August 30, 2003. Barone, Carole A. “The Changing Landscape and the New Academy,” EDUCAUSE Review, September/October 2003, pgs. 41- 47. Baumol, William J., and Sue Anne Batey Blackman. “How to Think About Rising College Costs,” Planning for Higher Education, Summer 1995, pp. 1-7. Chesborough, Henry W. Open Innovation. Cambridge:Harvard Business School Press, 2003. Chesborough, Henry W. “The Era of Open Innovation,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2003, pp. 35-41. Christensen, Clayton, Sally Aaron, and William Clark. “Disruption in Education,” EDUCAUSE Review, January/February 2003, pp. 44-54. Couturier, Lara K. “Balancing State Control with Society’s Needs,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 27, 2003, p. B20. Downes, Stephen. “Educational Blogging,” EDUCAUSE Review, September/October 2004, pp. 14-26. Duderstadt, James J. “Navigating the American University through the Stormy Seas of a Changing World,” Presentation at Annual Meeting of the Society for College and University Planning, July 22, 2003. Duderstadt, James J., Daniel E. Atkins, and Douglas Van Houweling, Higher Education in the Digital Age. Washington: ACE/Praeger Series on Higher Education, 2003. Foreman, Joel. “Games-Based Learning: How to Delight and Instruct in the 21st Century,” EDUCAUSE Review, September/October, 2004, pp. 50-66.

Gartner. “Changing the View of ROI to VOI – Value on Investment.” Gartner Research Note, 14 November 2001. Greenberg, Gary. “The Digital Convergence: Extending the Portfolio Model.” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August 2004, pp. 28-36. Guskin, Alan E., and Mary B. Marcy. “Dealing with the Future Now: Principles for Creating a Vital Campus in a Climate of Restricted Resources,” Change, July/August 2003. pgs. 10-21. Hamel, Gary, and Lisa Valikangas. “The Quest for Resilience,“ Harvard Business Review, September 2003, pp. 52-63. Hignite, Carla. “An Open Mind on Open Source,” Business Officer, August 2004, pp. !4 -24. Jafar. Ali. “The Sticky ePortfolio System: Tackling Challenges and Identifying Attributes,” EDUCAUSE Review. July/August 2004, pp. 38-48. Kaplan, Sarah, and Eric D. Beinhocker. “The Real Value of Strategic Planning,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter 2003, pp. 71-76. Lamb, Brian. “Wide Open Spaces: Wikis, Ready or Not,” EDUCAUSE Review, September/October 2004, pp. 36 – 49. Marcy, Mary B. “Why Foundations Have Cut Back in Higher Education,” The Chronicle of Higher Education. July 25, 2003, p. B16 Marklein, Mary Beth. “Colleges Brace for Bigger Classes and Less Bang for More Buck,” USA Today, August 27, 2003. Massey, William, and Robert Zemsky, Thwarted Innovation. White Paper, 2004. Newman, Frank, and Lara K. Couturier. The New Competitive Arena: Market Forces Invade the Academy. June 2001.



Books, Articles, and Reports (Continued) Norris, Donald M. “Driving Systemic Change with e-Learning,” Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, forthcoming. Norris, Donald M., Jon Mason, and Paul Lefrere. Transforming e-Knowledge: A Revolution in the Sharing of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2003. Norris, Donald M., Jon Mason, and Paul Lefrere. Transforming e-Knowledge: A Revolution in the Sharing of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2003, pgs. 36-40. Norris, Donald M., Jon Mason, and Paul Lefrere. Transforming e-Knowledge: A Revolution in the Sharing of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2003. pp. 121-138. Norris, Donald M., Jon Mason, Robby Robson, Paul Lefrere, and Geoff Collier. “A Revolution in Knowledge Sharing,” EDUCAUSE Review, September/October 2003, pgs. 14-26. Norris, Donald M., and Mark A. Olson. The Business Value Web: Resourcing Business Processes and Solutions in Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 2003. Norris, Donald M., and Mark A. Olson. The Business Value Web: Resourcing Business Processes and Solutions in Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 2003, p. 23. Norris, Donald M., and Mark A. Olson. The Business Value Web: Resourcing Business Processes and Solutions in Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 2003, pp. 34-47. Norris, Donald M., and Anne K. Keehn. “IT Planning: Cultivating Innovation and Value,” Syllabus, November 2003, pp. 11-16. Pew Policy Perspectives. “OF Precept, Policy, and Practice,” December 2002.

Potter, Will. “State Lawmakers Again Cut Higher Education Spending,” The Chronicle of Higher Education.” August 8, 2003, p. A22. Prahalad, C. K., and Venkatram Ramaswarmy. “The New Frontier of Experience Innovation,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2003, pgs. 12-18. Ready, Douglas A. “Leading at the Enterprise Level,” Sloan Management Review, Spring 2004. Sawhney, Mohanbir, Emanuela Prandell, and Gianmaria Verona. “The Power of Innomediation,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter 2003, pp. 77-82. Selingo, Jeffrey. “What Americans Think About Higher Education,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 2, 2003, pp. A10-18. Stern, Seth. “The Unkindest Cuts,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 26, 2002. Twigg, Carol A. “Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning,” EDUCAUSE Review, September/October, 2003, pgs. 28-38. Van der Werf, Martin. “Slashing Prices Draws a Crowd,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 1, 2003. Twigg, Carol A. “Teaching and Learning in a Hybrid World,” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August 2004, pp. 51-62. Wheeler, Brad. “Open Source 2007,” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August 2004, p. 12-27. Wheeler, Brad. “The Open Source Parade,” September/October 2004, pp. 68-69. EDUCAUSE Review, Wilson, Jack M. “Colloquy Live: Prospects for For-Profit Distance-Education Spinoffs.” Online interview with Jack M. Wilson, CEO of UmassOnline, a division of the University of Massachusetts. The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 13, 2001, 3 p.m. U.S. Eastern time. http://chronicle.com. Zemsky, Robert. “Have We Lost the Public in Higher Education,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 30, 2003, pp. B7-9.



Materials from Other States The high-level analysis of other systems of public institutions surfaced a variety of issues that relate to the issues of Common Systems at the University of Wisconsin System. The materials on each system are containing in Appendix VI. The insights drawn from these materials are contained in the project report. The following resources were used to generate these insights.

1. University System of Georgia Conversation with Randall Thursby

http://www.usg.edu/admin/regents/index.html http://www.usg.edu/oiit/ http://www.usg.edu/usgweb/iitsp/documents/core_team_charter 2. University of North Carolina System

Conversation with Joan Parker, Office of the President� http://www.northcarolina.edu/content.php/system/index.htm http://www.northcarolina.edu/content.php/bog/index.htm http://www.northcarolina.edu/content.php/ir/strategy/strategy.htm 3. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Conversation with Ken Niemi, CIO, MnSCU Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Office of the Chancellor Technology Master Plan, FY04 Interim Plan.



Appendix III: Participation in Common Systems, UW Campuses 1. Participation in Common Systems

Campus

PS SFS

PS SAS

Lawson/APBS

D2L

IAA

Kronos

APBS Data Warehouse

Brio

Informatica

FirstLogic

Eau Claire N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Green Bay Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y La Crosse N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Madison N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Milwaukee Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Oshkosh Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Parkside Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Platteville Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y River Falls Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Stevens Point N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Stout N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Superior Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Whitewater Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Colleges Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Extension Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y

Campus FASTAR PS SAS

FASTAR Collaterals

MILER PS SAS

MILER Integration

Eau Claire N Y Y Y Green Bay Y Y Y Y La Crosse N Y Y Y Madison Y Y Y Y Milwaukee Y Y Y Y Oshkosh Y Y Y Y Parkside Y Y Y Y Platteville Y Y Y Y River Falls Y Y Y Y Stevens Point N N Y Y Stout N Y Y Y Superior Y Y Y Y Whitewater Y Y Y Y Colleges Y Y Y Y Extension N Y N Y



2. Participation in Other Systemwide Technology Initiatives

Campus

Library System (Endeavor)

Microsoft Contract

Oracle Contract

WiscNet

Eau Claire Y Y Y Y Green Bay Y Y Y Y La Crosse Y Y Y Y Madison Y Y Y Y Milwaukee Y Y Y Y Oshkosh Y Y Y Y Parkside Y Y Y Y Platteville Y Y Y Y River Falls Y N Y Y Stevens Point Y Y Y Y Stout Y Y Y Y Superior Y Y Y Y Whitewater Y Y Y Y Colleges Y Y Y Y Extension N Y Y Y



Appendix IV: Changing Perspectives on Technology



Appendix V: Key Decision Points at UW Campuses 1. Legacy Systems

Campus

Early 90s

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Eau Claire

X

X

X

Decision to modernize

Green Bay

End of legacy

La Crosse

Y2K legacy conversion

Migration of legacy from Unisys to J2EE

Madison

Milwaukee

Shutdown mainframe

Oshkosh

Parkside

Platteville

Began phase out

Phased out

River Falls

Bull DPS 7000/320 mainframe installed

Bull mainframe turned off

Stevens Pt.

1989 mainframe shut down

Stout

Superior

Whitewater

Start of Y2K remediation

Last day of operation

Colleges

Extension

Retire Wang Independent Learning System



2. Student Systems

Campus

Early 90s

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 Eau Claire

V to A Series

Clearpath Upgraded processor

Decision to move to Oracle DB

Green Bay

PS SIS

La Crosse

Implemented DARS degree audit; touch-tone registration

Decided against PS SA and migrated current system

Began migration; implemented Web registration

Purchased DARWIN, electronic financial aid

Purchase scheduling software?

Madison

Purchased DARS

PS SA PS imple-mentation; graduate school Web application

Resource 25 for classroom

PS SA production

PS SA advancement for alumni; client-server DARS

PS ver 8; pilot Web registration

Replaced touch-tone registration with Web registration

Electronic financial aid

Milwaukee

Began PS SIS Go-live with PS SIS admissions, campus community

Go-live with PS SIS, including self-service

Oshkosh

PS SIS

Parkside

PS SAS

Platteville

PS Self-service Web registra-tion

River Falls

SIS legacy mainframe

Decision to implement PS SAS

PS eSIS go-live

Stevens Pt.

Implement Student System, added features over time

Full Web-based delivery. through Portal

Stout

Datatel

Superior

PS SAS

Whitewater

Decision to purchase PS

PS 7.6 PS 8.0

Colleges

Legacy SIS began

PS SIS

Extension



3. Financial Systems

Campus

Early 90s

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 Eau Claire

Interface to SFS

Student pay-roll interface

Green Bay

PS SFS

La Crosse

Automation of acctg. sys-tems; Tower Tender ID system for student billing

Procurement card pro-gramming required to load data in our acctg. system

PS SFS Moved back to Unisys; emailing statements & credit card payment for tuition

Migration to Oracle, CAS

Higher One (financial aid disburse-ments, IDs)

Higher One ACH Payments

Madison

WARF/campus acctg. merger; Implemented: DOA interface fin. mgmt. reporting sys.; payment disbursing sys., gen. accts. rec.; created purchasing system replacement

All campuses on UWPC General Ledger

UWPC WARF student payroll system

Began planning for PS SFS

Implemented 1st phase of SFS

Implemented WISDM for financial aid reporting; implemented 2nd phase of SFS

Added more campuses to SFS

Added Gift/Grant to WISDM

Milwaukee

PS SFS

Oshkosh

PS SFS

Parkside

PS SFS

Platteville

PS SFS

River Falls

GAS Legacy Mainframe

PS SFS

Stevens Pt.

Implemented

Stout

Datatel

Superior

PS SFS

Whitewater

Planning for system

Colleges

PS SFS

Extension



4. Human Resources Systems

Campus

Early 90s

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 Eau Claire

Forte to DMS

Green Bay

La Crosse

Automation of student payroll (bubble sheets)

Emailing of earning statements

New student appointment system

Madison

WARF/cam-pus payroll merger; payroll interface to ACH; implemented AA/EEO MAAPS interface.

Implemented UW Benefit Admin.; acquired Kronos for time reporting

Implemented HR position vacancy system

Selected Lawson; worked on Student App/Payroll system and Classified hiring/recruit-ment system

Purchased Lawson

Installed Lawson

Milwaukee

Oshkosh

Parkside

Platteville

River Falls

RF- Legacy/ WARF

Peterson HR Local Subsystem

Stevens Pt.

Implemented

Stout

Datatel

Superior

Whitewater

Decision to purchase PS

PS HR complete implementa-tion

Colleges

Extension



5. Portal

Campus

Early 90s

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 Eau Claire

Eportfolio & SharePoint

Green Bay

Decided not to implement

May implement

La Crosse

Madison

Pilot Added all incoming students and later all students

Added faculty; added advisor view; employee work tab

Decision to move to Uportal; added electronic class rosters; online requisitions

New portal for fall 2005

Milwaukee

Oshkosh

Parkside

Platteville

Maybe 2006

River Falls

Possible Pilot with PS

Stevens Pt.

Portal

Stout

E-scholar (homegrown)

Superior

PS Portal

Whitewater

Reviewed and decided not to implement

Colleges

Some D2L portal capabilities

Extension



6. Wireless

Campus

Early 90s

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 Eau Claire

Implemented Upgrade

Green Bay

One building Campus-wide

La Crosse

Experiment-ing

Evaluating Implementing Implementing Implementing

Madison

Pilot 6 sites available

Expanded 20 locations with 62 access sites

Improved security

Milwaukee

Architecture Building with laptop program

802.11 G adopted

Wireless rolled out to popular student areas

Oshkosh

Pilot Expanded to Library and Union

Parkside

Platteville

Activated Further expansion

River Falls

Possible pilot

Stevens Pt.

Wireless

Stout

Cisco

Superior

Installed Currently have 15 sites

Whitewater

Planning Deployment

Colleges

Available on some campuses

Extension



7. Other

Campus

Early 90s

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 Eau Claire

Green Bay

WebCT D2L

La Crosse

Madison

Implemented campus-wide information system using Gopher (92/93)

Implemented Data warehouse

Production utility for WebCT, piloted university directory

Implemented phase 1 Directory System

Began work on IAA

Selected D2L; completed IAA pilot

Milwaukee

Decision to participate in Internet2

PS SA Data warehouse for admissions/ campus community

PS SA Data warehouse for other modules

Oshkosh

Parkside

Platteville

River Falls

Stevens Pt.

Stout

Exchange (ATM network)

Laptop Campus

Course delivery and data warehousing

Electronic Advising

Superior

Whitewater

Decision to purchase Resource 25 – facilities and event scheduling

First implementa-tion of Resource 25

Web-based implementa-tion of Resource 25

Integrated with Campus calendar

Colleges

Extension

Lotus Learning Space



��

1. University System of Georgia

Within the University System of Georgia Board of Regents (USGBOR), the office of Information & Instructional Technology oversees and coordinates the recommendation and purchasing of key technology for the 34 institutions that the Board oversees. The office of ITT bases its technology decisions and recommendations on strategic goals that are linked to the BOR and USG campuses’ plans and goals. The OIIT also focuses on the development and continuance of planning activities that address both strategic and tactical needs for information and instructional technology from a System perspective. The OIIT evolved this strategy and direction based on a series of events that started in the year 2000. Based on the needs and recommendations from a report that the BOR commissioned Anderson to produce in 2000, the BOR asked the Office of Information and Instructional Technology to develop a comprehensive plan and planning process for Information and Instructional Technology that establishes a firm, results-oriented technology planning discipline for the University System of Georgia. The outcome of a 15-month assessment was a strategic plan. The plan was the development of a process and discipline that helped identify a clear set of goals and methodology that outlined the leadership, communications, deliverables, resources, boundaries, and measurement needed for each project. Outlined in this report are some of the key pieces of material available from the USGBOT and OIIT websites that outline this discipline and their leadership structure.

Over the course of time, both the BOR and USG have taken great strides in identifying areas for consolidation of business practices and operations and in making purchasing alliances that have been carried out by the OIIT. In a large part their achievements have been effective due to leadership that has been decisive and inclusive, to exploration of options and resources, and to proper funding.

The University System of Georgia, Board of Regents

The University System of Georgia's Board of Regents was created in 1931 as a part of a reorganization of Georgia's state government. With this act, public higher education in Georgia was unified for the first time under a single governing and management authority. The governor appoints members to the Board, who each serve seven years. Today the Board of Regents is composed of 18 members, five of who are appointed from the state-at-large, and one from each of the 13 congressional districts. The Board elects a chancellor who serves as its chief executive officer and the chief administrative officer of the University System.

The Board oversees 34 institutions: four research universities, two regional universities, 13 state universities, 2 state colleges, and 13 two-year colleges. These institutions enroll more than 233,000 students and employ more than 9,000 faculty and 35,000 employees to provide teaching and related services to students and the communities in which they are located.

Vision Statement

"The University System of Georgia will create a more educated Georgia, well prepared for a global, technological society, by providing first-rate undergraduate and graduate education, leading-edge research, and committed public service."

Mission Statement

The mission of the University System of Georgia is to contribute to the educational, cultural, economic, and social advancement of Georgia by providing excellent undergraduate general education and first-rate programs leading to associate, baccalaureate, masters, professional, and doctorate degrees; by pursuing leading-edge basic and applied research, scholarly inquiry, and creative endeavors; and by bringing these intellectual resources, and those of the public libraries, to bear on the economic development of the State and the continuing education of its citizens. Each institution in the University System of Georgia will be characterized by: • ��

��

��

�

• ��

��

��

�

• ��

��

�

• ��

��

��



��

��

��

��!��

�� "��

# $�� %��&�� &��

�� &��

�

' $��

�� &��

��

�

( )��

��

��

�

* $��

�

+ ,�� -��

� �&��

��

�

. ��&��

� ��

�

/ 0��

��

�

1 $�� !�� 2��

$�� 324$5� ��2��

$�� 32��$5 �

�6 )��

)�� !��

��

��

��

��

� Organization Chart �

�



�

�� !��"��#$�%&&'�(�"��)&$�%&&*�

• +��,�� -��

• �� -��

• �� -��

• ��.�� -��

• �� /��-��

• �� 0 �� 1 2�-��

• ��!� ��+�� . ��-��

• �� -��

• 3 ��4� ��5�6��, �� 7�--��

��7�� 77��



Governance of Institutions

Heads of institutions. The president of each institution in the University System shall be the executive head of the institution and of all its departments and shall exercise such supervision and direction as will promote the effective and efficient operation of the institution. He or she shall be responsible to the Chancellor for the operation and management of the institution and for the execution of all directives of the Board and the Chancellor.

Budgets of Institutions.The Board shall make the allocation of funds to the several institutions at the April meeting or the next regular meeting following the approval of the Appropriations Act or as soon thereafter as may be practicable in each year and shall approve the budgets of the institutions and of the office of the Board of Regents at the regular June meeting in each year or as soon thereafter as may be practicable. Appropriation. The Board of Regents shall be the only medium through which formal requests shall be made for appropriations from the General Assembly and the Governor of the State of Georgia

Office of Information and Instructional Technology (OIIT)

The OIIT provides services and support for the following projects, programs, and applications: Banner, Customer Services/Help Desk, eCore, PeopleSoft®, Oracle®, PeachNet®, Georgia EASY, GeorgiaFIRST, GeorgiaVIEW (WebCT), GALILEO, GIL, and USG by the Numbers (Data Warehouse/Decision Support System). 1. Enterprise Systems & Services (ESS) Enterprise Systems and Services is part of the University System of Georgia

Information and Instructional Technology. It is comprised of two divisions, Enterprise Application Systems (EAS) and Enterprise Infrastructure Services (EIS). Together, these organizations support critical information technology systems and applications on an enterprise level throughout the University System of Georgia as well as internally within the Office of Information and Instructional Technology. See also the Purpose Statement and Core Operating Principles for ESS.

a. Enterprise Applications Systems

The Enterprise Application Services (EAS) organization supports critical information technology projects on behalf of the University System. These projects consist of enterprise-wide projects as well as internal projects. Services include Project and Support Services, Systems Development, and Technology Services.

• Banner Student Information System Georgia BEST supports the Banner Student Information System and the Georgia Enhancements that provide for standard administrative practices for student and financial aid services.

• PeopleSoft Financials The GeorgiaFIRST project includes the deployment and support of the PeopleSoft suite of software modules for the Financials including Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, General Ledger, Asset Management, Budget Preparation, and Purchasing.

• PeopleSoft Human Resources Management System The GeorgiaFIRST project includes the deployment and support of the PeopleSoft suite of software modules for the Human Resources Management System.

• USG by the Numbers (Data Warehouse) USG by the Numbers is an information repository available to all constituents of the USG including the Board of Regents, the Office of the Chancellor, member institutions' administration, faculty, students, Federal Agencies, the Governor's office, the State Legislature, State agencies, and the public at large.

• University System Office Applications (USOA) Applications are used for collection and reporting of data required for decision-making, including legacy applications being replaced by the USG Data Warehouse. For information about reporting systems that the University System Office Applications support, see the following sites:

o Office of Facilities -- Capital Projects o Office of Strategic Research and Analysis -- Curriculum Inventory

Reporting, Financial Aid Reporting System, Student Information Reporting System



o USOA Web Applications -- EAS portal, FTU, Learning Support, Georgia EASY, eHOPE, and Continuing Education

o Business Practices (Banner web site login required; to obtain a login, contact your institution's Banner Project Leader):

� USOA Business Processes � GaBEST Banner

b. Enterprise Infrastructure Services�The Enterprise Infrastructure Services (EIS) organization supports critical infrastructure support on behalf of the University System including PeachNet®. Services provided by EIS include Network Support Services, Workstation Support Services, System Support Services.��Library & Customer Information Services (LCIS). Library and Customer Information Services (LCIS) interacts with and provides service to a wide range of customers. This unique role demands special attention to quality assurance, public relations, and management of the specialized needs of library and customer information services. (See also the Library and Customer Information Services Accomplishments for 2002 PDF, 151 kb). n its support mission, LCIS is accountable to the Office of Information and Instructional Technology (OIIT) and to constituents external to the OIIT by services in the following areas: Library Services. Library Services provides support for GALILEO and GALILEO Interconnected Libraries (GIL). GALILEO is a World Wide Web-based library providing access to thousands of full-text magazines, journals, encyclopedias, and electronic books for every resident of Georgia. Library Services supports USG libraries in their efforts to provide high-quality services to students, faculty, staff, and Georgia citizens. Services include an extensive virtual collection, access to databases, library automation and courier services, training, and marketing/communication for GALILEO and GIL libraries. Library Services also helps with ongoing collaboration and consensus-building among various library communities in developing the vision of one statewide library. Library Services is instrumental in creating mutually beneficial services such as cost-sharing of databases, and is continuously collecting and analyzing information in order to improve services.

2. Customer Services OIIT Customer Services, is the critical component in providing quality assurance for OIIT. Because of its singular role, Customer Services is especially concerned with continually reassessing criteria to adequately maintain exemplary customer service. Three components examine and produce quality assurance: 1) logging and tracking of problem reporting and resolution; 2) surveying users regarding their perceptions as to how well OIIT fulfills its mission; and 3) responding to results and making any necessary adaptations or improvements.

Information and Web Services. This component simultaneously serves internal and external needs, manages the University System Office web services, develops web sites and web applications for internal and external clients, and publishes promotional materials and documentation as necessary. Strategic Planning and Policy Development (SPPD). The Strategic Planning and Policy Development ("SPPD") function within the Office of Information and Instructional Technology focuses on the development and continuance of planning activities that address both strategic and tactical needs for Information and Instructional Technology from a System perspective. In addition, SPPD works to ensure participation and integration of OIIT into overall System strategic and financial planning. As plans move to actions, SPPD is engaged in the development and/or modification of System policies and related procedures as required. See http://www.usg.edu/usgweb/iitsp/

3.IIT Strategic Planning Project.

This website http://www.usg.edu/usgweb/iitsp/documents/ is designed to provide key stakeholders of the Information & Instructional Technology Strategic Planning Project with critical information and resources during the life of the project. The project began in January 2001 and is scheduled for completion in March 2002.

The goal of this project is to develop a comprehensive strategic plan and planning process for Information and Instructional Technology for the University System of Georgia. This planning process will link the planning efforts of the Board of Regents, OIIT, and the university system campuses. It will also guide the University System in making effective long-term technology-related plans and decisions and establish a firm, results-oriented technology planning discipline. Project Documentation You can find project documentation and links created to help effectively manage this project. Including the Core Team Charter and a list of roles and responsibilities. Additional Resources Helpful links and documents to provide background and research information related to the IIT Strategic Planning project. Surveys Surveys are being developed to gain additional input during our Environmental Analysis phase. The draft plan will be posted in mid December 2001.



4.IIT Strategic Planning Project: Project Documentation: Core Team Charter:

Goal

Develop a comprehensive strategic plan and planning process for Information and Instructional Technology that establishes a firm, results-oriented technology planning discipline for the University System of Georgia. This planning process links the planning efforts of the Board of Regents, OIIT, and campuses; and it guides the University System in making effective long-term technology-related plans and decisions.

Key Deliverables

1. IIT Strategic Plan for the University System of Georgia With system-wide involvement, implement a strategic planning process and develop a long-term strategic plan for Information and Instructional Technology for the University System. The strategic plan must consider or include: IIT Vision, Mission and Guiding Principles, strategic goals, a matrix of strategic services and who should provide those services, service delivery strategies, and specific short-term objectives and measures.

2. Process for Continuous IIT Strategic Planning for the University System With system-wide involvement, develop an continuous strategic planning process for the University System for Information and Instructional Technology. Process must consider and integrate as appropriate with the: BOR Strategic Plan, IIT Mission and Guiding Principles, Campus IT Strategic Planning, Campus Academic and Administrative Planning,

www.usg.edu/usgweb/iitsp/documents/core_team_charter.phtml

�

�

�


Appendices 10/25/04 26 �/�� 0 ��



2. University of North Carolina System The planning for a more unified IT resource began in 1998 when the newly appointed UNC President Molly Broad and the 16 chancellors began discussing the need for a more united and strategic view of information technology. They identify the need for funding and a strategic IT plan to develop the resources needed to carry-out the UNC vision of using IT as the way for transforming the intuitions into a more global and competitive place for learning in the 21st century. Until this point the 16 campuses acted as a loosely coupled federation when it came to making key IT decisions. After conducting an assessment of the needs of the 16 campuses, a strategy was defined that outlined recommendations and resources to better align and assist the campuses to in making key technology decisions. In January 2000 the Office of The President established a Division of Information Resources in January 2000. New committees and programs where established with common goals, leadership and resources. Roles and responsibilities were established and options on how to participate were outlined. This new structure has allowed for many of the institutions to share in the planning as well as the benefits of doing projects together that may not have had the resources to do so on their own. The information gathered below has been complied from the website of the UNC to outline their governance structure, their mission and their IT strategic plans and policies. Through strong leadership, defined goals, established policies and identifiable resources the UNC has been able to achieve many of the goals it has set forth in building stronger and efficient system of higher education for its citizens. University Of North Carolina, Board Of Governors The UNC BoG is the policy-making body legally charged with “the general determination, control, supervision, management, and governance of all affairs of the constituent institutions.” It elects the president, who administers the University. The 32 voting emmebrs of the BoG are elected by the General Assembly for four-year terms. Special members are non-voting members with varying terms. Such members are former chairs of the board, former governors and the president of the UNC Association of Student governments, or that student’s designee. The Board oversees 16 institutions. University Of North Carolina, Statement of Mission

The University of North Carolina is a public, multi-campus university dedicated to the service of North Carolina and its people. It encompasses the 16 diverse constituent institutions and other educational, research, and public service organizations. Each shares in the overall mission of the University. That mission is to discover, create, transmit, and apply knowledge to address the needs of individuals and society. This mission is accomplished through instruction, which communicates the knowledge and values and imparts the skills necessary for individuals to lead responsible, productive, and personally satisfying lives; through research, scholarship, and creative activities, which advance knowledge and enhance the educational process; and through public

service, which contributes to the solution of societal problems and enriches the quality of life in the State. In the fulfillment of this mission, the University shall seek an efficient use of available resources to ensure the highest quality in its service to the citizens of the State. Teaching and learning constitute the primary service that the University renders to society. Teaching, or instruction, is the primary responsibility of each of the constituent institutions. The relative importance of research and public service, which enhance teaching and learning, varies among the constituent institutions, depending on their overall missions. Strategic Priorities The University of North Carolina is guided by a set of strategic priorities: • ACCESS: Ensure affordability and access to higher education for all qualified

citizens and embrace a vision of lifelong learning. • INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL FORMATION: Through high-quality and relevant

graduate, professional, and undergraduate programs, develop an educated citizenry that will enable North Carolina to flourish.

• K-16 EDUCATION: : Continue to propose and support initiatives to serve the needs of the State's public schools.

• CREATION, TRANSFER, AND APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE: Expand the frontiers of knowledge through scholarship and research and stimulate economic development in North Carolina through basic and applied research, technology transfer, and outreach and engagement.

• INTERNATIONALIZATION: Promote an international perspective throughout the University community to prepare citizens to become leaders in a multi-ethnic and global society.

• TRANSFORMATION AND CHANGE: Use the power of information technology guided by IT strategy and more effective educational, administrative, and business practices to enable the University to respond to the competitive global environment of the 21st century.

Board Of Governors Standing Committees

Budget and Finance Educational Planning, Policies and Programs Personnel and Tenure University Governance

Ad Hoc Committees and Special Task Forces

Public Affairs Future of Information Technology Task Force on the UNC - Community College System Partnerships Special Committee on Economic Development and the University



Special Committee Reviewing the Funding Model for Enrollment Growth Committee on the Future of Nursing

Governance of the Institutions

Each of the 16 constituent institutions is headed by a chancellor, who is chosen by the BoG on the president’s nomination and responsible to the president. Each institution has a boart of trustees, consisting of 8 members elected by the Board of Governors, four appointed by the governor, and the president of the student body, who serves ex officio. (The NC School of the Arts has two additional ex-officio members) Each board of trustees holds extensive powers over academic and other operations of its institutions on delegation from the Board of Governors.

• University of North Carolina was the first public university in the United States to open its doors (1795) and the only one to graduate students in the eighteenth century.

• By 1972 all of the state's public education institutions that grant baccalaureate degrees had become part of the University of North Carolina through legislative action.

• The 16 campuses of the University--located across N.C.--have a combined enrollment of more than 183,000 students. Enrollment is expected to top 235,000 by 2012.

• UNC campuses collectively offer degrees in more than 300 disciplines. They confer more than three-fourths of North Carolina's baccalaureate degrees in high-need areas such as education, social work, engineering, nursing.

• UNC programs include an array of distinguished liberal-arts programs, two medical schools and one teaching hospital, two law schools, a veterinary school, a school of pharmacy, ten nursing programs, 15 schools of education, three schools of engineering, and a specialized school for performing artists.

• UNC campuses brought more than $940 million in external grants into the state in FY 2003, largely from federal sources. Much of this research activity is directly targeted to meet economic, health, and social needs within North Carolina.

• The UNC Higher Education Bond Program is providing a much-needed shot in the arm to the state’s economy. Economists estimate that every $1 dollar spent on local construction generates up to $3.75 for the local economy. Given this “multiplier effect,” the economic impact of the UNC Bond Program will be approximately $9.3 billion

Division Of Information Resources:

The Division of Information Resources, established within the UNC Office of the President in January 2000, has an overriding mandate: establish national preeminence of the University in information technology - IT, for short. IT encompasses the computers, software, networks, satellite links and related systems that allow people to access, analyze, create, exchange and use information. Each of the 16 UNC campuses uses IT to perform a variety of functions - from teaching and learning to financial administration - and some campuses are national leaders in the development and innovative use of IT.

The Division of Information Resources is implementing a system-wide IT strategy to ensure the University makes the best use of technologies for teaching, learning, research and administration. The division recognizes that collaboration among the campuses is the best way to address common interests, and it helps define the IT vision for the University and identify ways to complement - not replace - the IT planning already under way by constituent institutions.

The Division of Information Resources works collaboratively with UNC constituent institutions to help ensure efficient and cost-effective integration of new technologies that meet common and unique needs of the 16 campuses. By providing a collective technology vision, the division guides the University in setting IT priorities, allocating IT resources, and developing or expanding IT-based services. Coordinated Technology Management identifies common IT products and services used by UNC campuses and negotiates group acquisitions and system-wide contracts to contain costs. e-Learning ensures UNC keeps pace with the growing demand for distance and distributed education and opportunities to learn anywhere, anytime. Networking and Media Services provides desktop support, training, networking design and maintenance, system administration, videoconferencing services, specialized training and audio-visual services to meet the internal needs of the UNC Office of the President and affiliated organizations. Online Services manages web-based initiatives and offers consultation on web-based strategies and development for the UNC Office of the President and affiliated organizations. Shared Services Alliance evaluates and creates IT technologies to develop or enhance common administrative and student service systems on the web. Special Projects provides support for the myriad of IT activities and initiatives related to implementation of UNC's IT Strategy.



Teaching and Learning with Technology Collaborative serves as a clearinghouse for creating, collecting and disseminating information on IT technologies used by faculty and students. Partnerships provide the opportunity to share IT resources and expertise with other state and national government entities and institutions. UNC Links Newsletter timely updates on IT initiatives from the University's 16 campuses.

The UNC Information Technology Strategy: In 1998, UNC President Molly Broad and chancellors of the 16 constituent institutions began discussing the need for a strategic plan to guide the University in determining IT priorities, allocating IT resources, and developing or expanding IT-based services. Their deliberations resulted in the IT Strategy Project led by a steering committee of nine chancellors. A key recommendation was the establishment of the Division of Information Resources with an administrative home in the Office of the President.

UNC developed its IT Strategy after conducting a thorough assessment of the common and unique needs of the 16 campuses. The IT Strategy is not a set of directives that all of the campuses must follow in developing their IT capabilities. Rather, it is a menu of recommendations for making the most of finite resources and capturing maximum effectiveness of IT-based programs and services.

An in-depth look at the University's IT strategic planning process, recommendations and action plans is available in A Roadmap to the Future: A Report to Faculty, Staff, Students, Trustees and Friends of the 16 Campuses. A review of our progress is documented in the 2000-2001 IT Strategy Update, 2001-2002 IT Update and the 2002-2003 IT Update. “A Roadmap to the Future: A Report to Faculty, Staff, Students, Trustees and Friends of the 16 Campuses”

The following report outlines the information technology strategic process, recommendations and action plans for the University of North Carolina. Information Technology Has Changed Everything . . . Including Our Expectations Can the University Meet Our IT Expectations? UNC’s Information Technology Strategy Project Phase I: Developing an IT Vision and Assessing Campus Networks Phase II: Developing an IT Strategy The Information Technology Strategy Services for Students

· Web-enabled Services · Integrated Services

Campus Teaching and Learning with Technology · Campus Activities · Collaborative Initiatives · Leadership Activities

Distance Education Administrative Systems Logistical Needs

· Network Maintenance · User Support and Training · Collaborative Procurement

The IT Action Plan The IT Strategy Steering Committee

UNC Shared Services Alliance - Administrative The UNC Shared Services Alliance ("Alliance"), the organizational home for administrative systems, provides a forum for UNC's 16 campuses to explore new and better ways to collaborate on administrative IT issues. The Alliance spearheads a number of projects to bring new applications to UNC's campuses. Foremost among the Alliance's goals was to web enable a range of common student services to enhance and improve administration for students, faculty and staff. Campuses participating in this collaboration, known as Web Enabling Student Services, implemented the first phase of online services in December 2000 and a second phase in Fall 2001. Another important focus for the Alliance was development of a Prospective Student Portal that can be customized by UNC campuses to meet unique needs. The portal will organize information that is important to potential or recently admitted students and interactively guide them through a host of campus resources. To avoid duplication of resources and leverage expertise within the University, the Alliance (through its procurement committee) contracts with campuses for products and services when possible and works in conjunction with Coordinated Technology Management on projects requiring outside vendors. The Banner Project: Responding to the need for increased service requirements and operational efficiencies on each campus and across the system as a whole, the Alliance designed a decision-making process to guide the University's search for a new enterprise system for administrative functions. In June 2002, 13 campuses united to move to SCT’s Banner enterprise system to streamline administrative services in five areas: advancement, finance, financial aid, human resources and student service.



Alliance Advisory Board

Each of the 16 campuses is a member of the Shared Services Alliance and has voting rights on the Alliance Advisory Board. Projects and services in which full members participate are initially funded by the Alliance, while associate members participate in and fund only those projects and services they deem most valuable to their campuses. The 11 full members are ASU, AT&T, ECSU, FSU, NCCU, NCSA, UNCA, UNCP, UNCW, WCU, And WSSU. The five associate members are ECU, NCSU, UNCC, UNC-CH, and UNCG. Representing the office of the President are three ex-officio members appointed from academic affairs, finance, and information resources. Roles and Responsibilities. The UNC Shared Services Alliance Board seeks to ensure the success and advancement of the Alliance in a collaborative environment for the common good of all UNC institutions. Roles and responsibilities include:

• To strive to provide the highest level of service to users through appropriate financial and human resource collaboration.

• To communicate the Alliance's mission, accomplishments and goals to the

campus administration and support staff, as well as garner support from key stakeholders for projects endorsed by the Alliance.

• To be prepared to devote time to Alliance business at one's home institution and to make every effort to make timely responses to requests from the Alliance Executive Director and the UNC Chief Information Officer.

• To assist in identifying key resources to accomplish projects endorsed by the Alliance.

• To attend meetings regularly and express viewpoints.

• To serve on various subcommittees as requested by the Alliance Executive Director and the UNC CIO to support the Alliance mission, project objectives, and By-Law requirements.

• To share complete and accurate information about any product or solution the Board is using or intends to use.

• To identify issues and concerns the Board needs to address.

• To distinguish between personal convictions and professional duties and not allow personal convictions to interfere with representation of Board obligations.

• To inform the Board of any positions held on Boards, Advisory Committees or other such activities with prospective vendors that has potential to be viewed as conflict of interest.