University Records and Information Management Committee meeting

Agenda, 02/28/2018, 11:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.

114 Hale Library,

  1. Welcome and standard business (5 mins)
  2. Present: Joel Anderson, Cliff Hight, Ryan Leimkuehler, James Bach, Hanna Manning, Alma Deutsch, Frieda Beat, Gary Pratt (Kansas Historical Society: Matt Veatch, Megan Rohleder, Michael Church, Ethan Anderson.)
  3. Introductions
  4. Introduction of new member Frieda Beat and introduction of Kansas Historical Society guests at the meeting.
  5. Minutes from January 24 meeting
  6. Jim moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Hanna second the motion, and the approval of the minutes passed unanimously.
  1. Report on assignments from previous meeting (10 mins)
  2. Ryan will work with Jim and Loren for training sessions soon
  3. Ryan had conversation with Jim about training sessions. He will set up a training before the next meeting in March. Ryan did not discuss training with Loren. Ryan wanted to receive feedback on training from Jim’s group before moving forward on an additional training. Ryan did not discuss trainings with Kathy until a replacement on the committee was made.
  4. Ryan and Cliff will work to develop information to send out through K-State Today and email lists for HR personnel and financial personnel
  5. Ryan emailed out K-State today article to committee members to forward on to any list-servs that may be interested in the training.
  6. Cliff will look at getting on a First Tuesday agenda
  7. Cliff will send an email requesting to be added to the April agenda.
  1. Next steps (35 mins)
  2. Proposals
  3. Managing evaluations
  4. Cliff and Ryan are setting up meetings with Loren and Alma to move evaluations to HCS. Several new contacts were added to the meeting group.
  5. Tenure and promotion documentation
  6. On hold until evaluations are complete.
  7. Communications and training
  8. Ryan will work with Jim, HCS, Research, Faculty Senate contacts to further communication and training goals.
  9. Retention schedule entries
  10. Course Content update: Presented to Faculty Senate Executive Committee and they had slight changes to clarify how the electronic records are managed and notifications of information to faculty after the 5-year retention length. Course Content will be presented to the full faculty senate for comment before next committee meeting.
  11. Credit Card Reports (Sales): Jim gave background on the credit card report and added that the retention should extend to 1 cld year.
  12. Ryan proposed changes to Revision to Recruitment Files should include search committee records. The changes should also address the handling of recordings of interviews. Committee decided to point to policy in the retention schedule to handle these records.
  13. Jim moved to approve the proposals as amended. Frieda seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
  14. Other topics (EU GDPR, CUI, data governance group)
  15. PPM Update
  16. Ryan gave update to add a section addressing transfer of records form to PPM 3090 and change was approved.
  17. EU GDPR: Gary gave update on status of GDPR.
  18. CUI: Cliff gave update. Ryan and Cliff will receive training on CUI and how it affects records on campus. Gary: working group is currently working on compliance by spring.
  19. Data governance group: Gary gave background on developing the group. Cliff: gave background on the current reporting structure. Overlap with the data governance group and move reporting structure from provost to CIO (see Attachment 1 for early draft of Gary’s idea).
  1. Review assignments for next time (5 mins)
  2. Ryan will set up training with Jim
  3. Ryan will submit retention schedules for SRB
  4. Ryan will submit changes to PPM
  5. Ryan and Cliff will continue to work with faculty senate to submit course content records
  6. Cliff will send an email requesting to be added to a future First Tuesday agenda.
  1. Adjourn
  2. Jim moved to adjourn the meeting. Hanna seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 12:01 PM.

Attachment 1

IT Governance Recommendation

Why IT governance?

  • Shape Policy and Plans – Developing policy and setting a direction for IT
  • Provide Advice and Input – Communicating the campus’s needs, wants, and preferences
  • Talk to Campus – Educating campus about major IT undertakings and offerings
  • Green-Light Projects – Deciding what IT should be doing and how IT money should be spent

Problem/Recommendation

At this time, there is no formal IT governance system at Kansas State University. The following whitepaper describes the current structure, informal at best, and recommended structures for filling in existing gaps in governance.

Responsibilities of all IT Governance Committees

The IT governance structure as a whole is responsible for the following:

  • Establishing and communicating a campus-wide IT vision that supports the University mission and goals
  • Establishing IT policies that support strategic, campus-wide IT priorities
  • Defining technical standards for the University
  • Establishing best practices and tools for IT across campus

IT Governance Values

For IT governance to be successful, the committees must hold the following values:

  • Transparency — Governance structure and process must be clear. How decisions are made and who has input rights and decision-making rights must be readily apparent to campus.
  • Communication — Communication must occur into, out of, and across the committees and with campus.
  • Accountability — Committees and task forces must be held accountable for delivering on their responsibilities. Clear escalation paths for issue resolution must be defined and outlined in charter documentation.
  • Responsibility — Governance structure must focus on decision making and results more so than implementation and project management.
  • Appropriate representation — Constituency groups across campus must be represented.
  • Active support — Governance structure requires staff to support the process. Agenda setting, meeting logistics, issue tracking, and communication are all essential aspects of active support.

Data and Records Governance (Gap)

Description

Data governance is the creation of standardized processes for data management (e.g., definitions, availability, security, usage). It provides the foundation for consistent, coherent analytical efforts across the institution from the departmental to the executive level. Data governance enables better access and use of institutional information. This document does not address governance of research data.

Problem

Currently there is no formal data governance process at K-State. There is ad hoc management of data that varies depending on the system and the data owner. There is a lack of clarity throughout the institution, particularly across functional lines and at department levels, on exactly who is the steward for data and how access to that information is handled. Within functional business lines – HR, Finance, Student - there is internal consistency and management of data and reporting but that knowledge is inconsistently shared or well understood. Other data sources such as space utilization or grant information is not easily accessible to combine with core data sources to answer relevant management questions. Knowledge management failures results in dissimilar data entry and reporting practices across the University. Departments, administrative units, or individual staff may create their own rules for data input and reporting. There is no data warehouse for institutional data.

Lack of standardization and processes results in conflicting reports generated at the unit level and requests for reports that overwhelms available resources to provide in a timely fashion. The challenges for data and reporting include the following:

Data Definitions

  • No standard definitions shared across core systems
  • No easy access to existing data definitions
  • Variations in existing definitions
  • No central staff to resolve inconsistencies

Data Systems

  • Existence of suboptimal shadow systems
  • No standardized data practices
  • Inconsistent methods for authorization to access and use of data

Data Collection

  • Data fields not uniformly collected
  • Open field entries not well defined
  • Place-holder data used
  • Fields misappropriated
  • No consistent checks on data entry quality

Reporting/Business Intelligence & Analytics

  • Shadow systems use conflicting data
  • No shared reporting/analytics tools
  • Access to needed data varies
  • No data warehouse

Records Management (Replace the RIMC)

  • Develop, review, revise, endorse, and interpret university records and information management and technology policies and procedures for the university community and ensure that those policies are appropriately disseminated to the campus community
  • Keep retention policies and schedules updated.
  • Provide guidance on matters related to records and information management and information technology.
  • Ensure best practices are known and followed.
  • Respond to records questions and issues.
  • Identify and implement training opportunities.
  • Develop implementation and enforcement strategies.
  • Address changes in technology and recordkeeping priorities

Recommendation

  • Establish a Data and Records Governance Committee
  • AVP to director or senior staff level
  • Composition: IT, BI, and cross-functional data stewards (Provost’s office, CFO’s office, Registrar’s office, HR, IR etc.)
  • Size: 5 – 10
  • Time commitment: At least one hour per month to begin, less frequent once established
  • Focus
  • Data Definitions: What should the definition and security level for these terms be?
  • Role Definitions: Clarify roles in data management (stewards, custodians, etc.) and who
  • Term Requirements: What standard terms do we not have that are causing problems?
  • Data Stewardship: Are the right people in data stewardship roles across campus?
  • IT Policy Council would provide strategic direction, vision, and prioritization for data governance
  • A definition and access focused data governance committee of technologists and data custodians who are subject matter experts