Coordinating Committee Meeting
|
Meeting Notes - March 13, 2007
|
|
David Hardison gave a report on the Feb. 26 CM Go Live. Much like other IRIS Go Lives, authorizations and security formed the bulk of initial problems. David shared graphs depicting some Go Live activities (IRIS help calls, number of classes dropped, and number of applications received). Command Center calls were limited due to the fact that key CM Team members were housed in the Registrar’s Office and The Graduate School to help on site with Go Live. UK faculty and staff members entered approximately 5,400 mid-term grades. Several issues surfaced as the grading began and most have been resolved. Some problems related to individual desk tops continue to get attention. The CM Team has converted 2.8M academic records from SIS to CM. There are clean-up challenges for some data areas related to mapping issues. Students who attended the first Merit Weekend registered via myUK with only minor issues. The Merit Weekends are providing an opportunity for debugging and fine-tuning before Priority Registration. The autoadmit program ran successfully in CM and correspondence will be generated this week.
|
David informed the group that the PM Go Live will occur on May 7, rather than in April. Bob Wiseman requested the date change to allow more time for final preparation.
|
Phyllis Nash provided the committee with the latest developments in Business Warehouse: Proof-of-Concept for Business Objects. This activity, a shared IRIS-IT effort, is scheduled for March 19-21. The Coordinating Committee can expect to learn about the outcome and any recommendations at a future meeting. Report Writing. The BW Team has been reconfigured to focus on report writing. Ruby Watts, Janet Baynham, and Raleigh Watson have joined the team to develop CM reports. Brian Hughes will develop MM reports. Also assigned to report writing are Jayna Cheesman, Deb Claunch, and Sarah Hall. Brenda Teague is busy with the task of documenting reports. Next week Nick Arnold from PPD will join the team to work on PM reports. Phyllis emphasized that there is a learning curve for reporting, as not everyone knows BW and the tools involved. Following this update, Phyllis then talked about a series of questions about reporting that have surfaced as she and others have worked with the full IRIS Project Team on this topic. BW or R/3 reports? Early on in the IRIS Project, the reporting guideline directed users to run R/3 reports when they actually needed real-time data and otherwise rely on BW as the main source for reporting. Should this approach be reconsidered, given the resources consumed by R/3 reports? Who is responsible for reporting? The IRIS Project Team must build the infrastructure. Who is responsible for creating reports required by statute or regulation? Who should write reports for central offices? For end-user reports? Should units have dedicated staff members for reporting (as has been the case historically in PPD and the Registrar’s Office, for example)? Or, should there be a central group to handle reports? Is the R.I.C.E. list valid? Some 800 report items remain on the list. How should these reports be addressed? How should priorities for new requests be set? End-users send in BW requests regularly. Currently some 70 report requests are in the queue. How are priorities to be determined? And by whom? |
|
The Coordinating Committee meets next on April 10. |
