Room 412, State Farm Hall of Business

Room 412, State Farm Hall of Business

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.

Room 412, State Farm Hall of Business

Present: Voting members: Sam Catanzaro, Scott Johnson, Dane Ward, Deb Smitley, Greg Alt, Tammy Carlson, Larry Lyons, Jim Jawahar, Jonathan Rosenthal, Dwayne Sackman, Jill Jones, Robert Blemler, and Dan Holland. Ex-Officio: Mark Walbert. Invited Guests: Wendy Smith, Matthew Helm, and Ed Vize. Absent: Barb Blake and Andrea Ballinger

  • Announcements and Updates. Deb Smitley opened the meeting, and thanked everyone for attending.
  • Notes from Council Meetings. The minutes from the October 2012 and January 2013 meetings were approved without change. They will be uploaded to the Council website.
  • Procedures: Review and Approval. An attempt to approve this procedure electronically following the last Stewardship Council meeting was unsuccessful. Mark Walbert explained the difference between 9.8.1 Data Classification Procedures and 9.8.2 Procedure for Securing and Accessing Each Data/System Classification.
  • 9.8.1 classifies the data and 9.8.2 are the procedures.
  • Procedures are ready to post to the website once approved.
  • Jonathan Rosenthal moved to approve procedures.
  • Jim Jawahar 2nd the motion.
  • Representatives from General Council and Internal Auditor offices were involved the development of the procedures.
  • 9.8.1 and 9.8.2 were unanimously approved by the Council.
  • Projects Closed Since Last Meeting. Addressed by Ed Vize
  • Benefits Custom Leave page: officially closed
  • Projects Requesting Approval. Addressed by Ed Vize
  • ISU Childcare Center Electronic Records:
  • Provide online capture and maintenance of emergency contact information for ISU Child Care Center, allow potential customers to apply online and have an automated way to alert guardians in case of an emergency.
  • Eliminate emergency contact information in hard copy form which is not an ideal way to store data for easy access.
  • Suggested workaround solution is to scan the files into a folder.
  • Suggested technical solution is to develop an online form or use existing functionality for purchase.
  • Jonathan Rosenthal: Is Skyward a good fit?
  • Ed Vize: We can look into it.
  • Jim Jawahar: Do we know the number of children affected?
  • Ed Vize: I believe less than 50.
  • Deb Smitley: Should we go back and look at Skyward then?
  • Wendy Smith: We need to check to see if waivers have been filled out by the parents.
  • Council agreed to hold consideration until later date.
  • Mail Services Application Rewrite: Addressed by Ed Vize
  • University Mail Services handles all in and out going mail for the entire University. The department needs a way to track mail coming in and going out. It must track the related mailing costs for departments, interfacing with carriers such as USPS, Fed Ex, UPS et al, tracking data (i.e. Postage, orders from departments, tracking numbers, invoices, account information, addresses, mail tubs, labels etc.) reporting out on that data and rectifying discrepancies all on a daily and yearly basis.
  • The database is not getting the job done anymore.
  • Suggested move forward to a BI platform.
  • Jill Jones: This deals more with bulk mail going off campus. This is basically a way to charge back departments.
  • Deb Smitley: Does it make sense to provide another option to get a quick turn around and give them some relief to go forward? Knowing the list of BI projects is getting longer and longer.
  • Matthew Helm: This is not in the current data system so we will need to analyze and build it into the system.
  • Deb Smitley: Do we agree to move the project back to AT and the user to evaluate their needs to see if there is a short term answer knowing this will come back?
  • Tammy Carlson: I am concerned because we only meet every other quarter. Will that be too long of a delay? Isn’t there something we can do in the interim?
  • Ed Vize: the analysis will need to be done so that will probably take several months.
  • Update OpScan Evaluation Software: Addressed by Ed Vize
  • Need ability to do post processing of scanned tests.
  • The University’s existing test scanning software, ISUTest, only runs on an operating system that is no longer supported and will not be sustainable with existing systems in the near future.
  • Need to evaluate a new scanner and software.
  • Jim Jawahar: move to endorse.
  • Jonathan Rosenthal: 2nd the move.
  • The Council unanimously endorsed the business case.
  • In-Progress Projects.
  • FAMM Replacement System – in negotiations with the vendor
  • Work with the vendor to reword part of contract is underway.
  • We need to validate that it will actually do what we need it to do.
  • Price is high for yearly maintenance. Trying to work on that.
  • Everbridge Replacement – PO will be completed any day
  • Must let Everbridge know we are renewing by May 1st.
  • Deb Smitley: Will there be sufficient time to do testing? Are we comfortable that the change over will not cause any issues?
  • Ed Vize: there really is a 4 week wiggle room, we look to integrate in June.
  • Mark Walbert – we have Everbridge until the end of the fiscal year.
  • Assessment of Online Parking Permit Purchase System
  • VOIP Public Address System in Lab Schools
  • no update
  • People Admin Upgrade
  • going well
  • Housing Room Selection Change
  • Complete and will be displayed early May
  • Budget Wizard New Source Table
  • Access Request Fulfillment Form
  • Near completion
  • looking for user group
  • should be done by next meeting.
  • New Hourly Employee Classes
  • actively testing.
  • Electronic Health Record and Clinical Information System
  • look early June to use in Speech and Hearing Clinic.
  • Datatel SQL Migration and Re-Platform
  • working with vendor and comptroller’s office to make sure we have everything.
  • Will not implement until October so it doesn’t interfere with year end
  • Appointment Manager
  • done
  • Classroom Technologies
  • 100% of the rooms have been checked and categorized
  • The goal is that any learning space has equipment in it to connect and display
  • Projects for Discussion
  • Work Intake and Prioritization (RFC Process)
  • Look to work on the right project at the right time
  • Ed will post a summary to the Council SharePoint site by June 30th
  • Planning for Q1
  • Ed Vize: working through the new RFC process and will be able to present at the July meeting.
  • Jill Jones: Do you still report on projects that do not fall into the data stewardship council level?
  • Ed Vize: we track them and will be putting them out onto the AT website, the goal is to be transparent and provide a full project portfolio view.
  • Greg Alt: we have approved projects that have never gone anywhere. How do we move these projects onto the next step?
  • Ed Vize: That is where we have to balance the resources and work on the projects that we have the resources for (development staff, java people etc.)
  • Greg Alt: Are they in the RFC que?
  • Ed Vize: We are working on it. The council approves things that cannot be started immediately. It takes proper analysis of the resources available.
  • Deb Smitley: once priorities are set by the council, AT does not change those priorities right?
  • Matthew Helm: Projects are assigned based upon priorities established by the Council and in accordance with the skill set needed to complete the project.
  • Other Matters
  • Deb Smitley: We are approaching the two year mark of the date when the Council was established and first met. This is a new structure for the university and I think it is time to look at the Council:.
  • it’s charge and composition. Have we met the charge? Do we need to change the composition of the Council?
  • An external party needs to come in and help with that analysis either through interviews or an on-line survey, but it must be timely and cost efficient
  • Jim Jawahar: it is always a good idea to take stock but I hesitate to commit funding at this point. Perhaps we just need a discussion at the table.
  • Jonathan Rosenthal: I would agree with that. If we look at the charge I think we will see we have completed a lot of the primary mission.
  • Deb Smitley: That is correct – much initial time was spent on developing master data access plan, i.e., data classification schema. And, considerable time was spent developing a process for prioritization of projects. We need to talk about what changes in the charge are necessary, if any.Wendy Smith: is it worth waiting until the RFC processes are working?
  • Deb Smitley: That would dovetail nicely.
  • Jim Jawahar: We could set apart a separate meeting to discuss.
  • Wendy Smith: Do we need an outside view or just the people at the table?
  • Deb Smitley: As we consider the review, we need to think about including other parties and how best to do that.
  • Wendy Smith: People who use the process might have an opinion on prioritization.
  • Tammy Carlson: Sometimes I feel like we are a rubber stamp. Are we doing what we are supposed to do? Do we rubber stamp everything and let AT figure the rest out? But after today, I realize that isn’t the case as we are turning back two projects for more review.
  • Jill Jones: Does campus even fully understand what we do and our charge?
  • We need to re-evaluate our roles and ability to go back and articulate to our divisions.
  • We need to communicate with campus our role as advocate and advisor.
  • Scott Johnson: I think the group could be smaller. Deb Smitley: Let’s look at the Agenda for July and maybe start the meeting earlier.
  • Let me know of any ideas that you may have.
Top View