1. Approval of Minutes - Chair Smiley
2. Announcements - Chair Smiley
3. Data Warehouse Project Update: Mary Jo Anderson, Director Analytical Studies
4. Discussion of the request for Tier 1 and Tier 2 System Information Request: Bob Loessberg-Zahl

Absent: John Bruno.

Excused: Mary Duthie, Michele Fulton, Dave Shelby, and Kathi Sylva.

Staff to the Council: Debbie Lauriano, Randy Moory, and Babette Schmitt.

Guests: Cortney Midla (Campus Data Warehouse End User Support and Project Analyst), Sandra Stewart (Information and Educational Technology), and Hebert Diaz-Flores.

 
The meeting began at 3:00 p.m.

1. Approval of Minutes - Chair Smiley

   The Council approved the minutes as submitted.
   
    
   

2. Announcements - Chair Smiley
   
   Chair Smiley introduced and welcomed Mike Allred to the Council. Mike is the Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance.
   
   Chair Smiley then summarized the results of the joint meeting with the Academic Computing Coordinating Council (AC4) on March 29. Smiley reported that the councils moved to recommend the portal be granted permanent status and offered to all faculty and students. The councils then recommended that the current MyUCDavis system be elevated to Tier 1 administrative system status and agreed with the proposal to allocate $187,000 in annual budget to support the portal's current features. (See the joint meeting minutes at http://ac4.ucdavis.edu/minutes/03_29_01/.)
   
   Members commented they were very pleased with the outcome of the joint meeting.

    
   

3. Data Warehouse Project Update: Mary Jo Anderson, Director Analytical Studies
   Handouts:
   
   1. Report of the Data Administration Project Team to AdC3 (Word doc)
   2. Institutional Data Warehouse Characteristics (Excel doc)
   3. UC Davis Pilot Data Warehouse: Project Status Update (PowerPoint)
   Mary Jo Anderson, Resource Management and Planning, reported on the status of the Data Warehouse Pilot Project, summarizing the project's background, providing a live demo of some of the system's features, and sharing options for system developments in the upcoming year. (For more information on the project, see the PowerPoint presentation.)
   
   Over the past nine months, the project team has focused its efforts on responding to the issues raised last spring by AdC3 and analysts from Information and Educational Technology (IET) and the Office of Resource Management and Planning (ORMP). Anderson summarized the team's accomplishments in meeting the directions given by the AdC3 last year (see PowerPoint presentation). The tasks to the group fell into three categories (infrastructure, technical challenges, and research and planning). Accomplishments include the following:
   • Data from two different systems (Banner and PPS) have been integrated.
   • The evaluation of the extraction, transformation and loading (ETL) tool is completed, and Genio, produced by Hummingbird, has been selected.
   • Several student data products are in production status, but given the complexity of the data, the financial aid module has not yet been completed.
   • Benchmarking of other data warehouse projects is completed. Anderson will send additional information about the benchmarks to the Council.
   • The project team will report their cost-benefit analysis next month.
   • The team is working with data stewards on an access policy that will apply to all administrative computing systems. The policy is being reviewed for inclusion in the Policy and Procedure Manual.
   • The task of developing a strategic approach to data management at UC Davis will be pursued by the New Business Architecture (NBA) Steering Committee. The project team plans to participate in general campus discussions about how to customize the NBA vision for our campus.
   
   Anderson reported further on the efforts the Data Warehouse Project Team proposes for 2001 -2002. Instead of randomly adding other data to the warehouse, Anderson proposed that the approach for next year focus on identifying needs and obtaining the data necessary to address them. Some needs have already been identified through consultation with campus units. They include: data to support fundraising and legislative functions; integrated sponsored research applications, awards, and expenditures; facilities inventory in DaFIS; staff demographics and workload data (to improve recruitment, development, and retention); and a student-alumni module (to assess students' progress after graduation). Anderson solicited further input from Council members.
   
   Anderson then illustrated the capabilities of the data warehouse system with a live, online demonstration that focused on analysis of data from the student information system and employee data.
   
   Council members inquired about the following:
   • The value of the data warehouse and whether or not it will lead to different decision-making. Anderson replied that she is preparing the cost benefit discussion for the next AdC3 meeting in May.
   • What is required to deploy the tool. Anderson indicated that users will access the tool through a Web-based interface; the only thing they will need is a downloadable applet. In addition, the team plans to develop a training program for users and a mechanism for managing licenses for the product.
   • Anderson also indicated that next year's efforts to enhance the metadata would enable users to better understand the data.
   
   Council commented that this tool needs to be distributed more widely so more people get to test and evaluate it. Data analysis will be simplified. Council also commented that a big decision the campus will need to make is how much access to the data will be allowed, by whom, and how. Levels of control will need to be implemented to safeguard the confidentiality of the data.
   
    
   
4. Discussion of the request for Tier 1 and Tier 2 System Information Request: Bob Loessberg-Zahl
   
   Bob Loessberg-Zahl, Resource Management and Planning, discussed with the Council the implications of the call to the vice chancellors to report on their Tier 1 and Tier 2 systems. Loessberg-Zahl reiterated the goals for this call:
   • To identify the project proposals that campus units expect to submit for approval and the potential impact these will have on other campus computing systems.
   • To identify budget and funding needs, and
   • To implement a coordinated budget and technical review process for the proposals. Loessberg-Zahl indicated that the budget discussion needs to happen in the context of the criteria that will be used to review the proposals. He and Vice Provost Bruno are developing those criteria and plan to present them to the Council. Loessberg-Zahl also indicated the importance of taking into account the New Business Architecture report released by the Office of the President last year.
   
   Council agreed on the need for evaluation criteria. In the absence of such criteria, much of the effort to develop proposals could be for naught. Council members suggested several criteria for consideration, including the extent to which the proposal
   • Supports the academic and research missions of the University
   • Increases and enhances the student experience at the University
   • Is related to a change mandated by statute, ruling of administrative agency, or Office of the President
   • Improves or enhances our ability to manage the University's resources
   • Presents direct or indirect cost savings
   • Simplifies the staff's job.
   
   Many administrative systems, including infrastructure systems, do not have a direct tie to the academic and research missions. Council members also noted the need for the University to develop systems that do not exist today, such as an HR system, a research administration system, and the infrastructure to support these functions.
   
   Council asked about the time limit for responding to the call for proposals, noting that there were many systems and many uncertainties to address (including those related to the implementation of the New Business Architecture recommendations). There is yet no comprehensive list of all computing systems on campus, and the budget individual campus units allocate to those systems also remains to be identified (e.g., PPS systems exist all over the campus). Loessberg-Zahl replied that at this point the reports should include as much information as possible. They should indicate what is mandated, the timeframe to complete the mandate, and the anticipated costs. Reports for "discretionary projects" should also identify the anticipated timeframe and costs. Loessberg-Zahl recognized that the reports from the campus units will be incomplete and subject to change. The system owners will have the opportunity through the biennial budget process to update the information submitted in April.
   
   Council asked what the process would be after the reports were received. Loessberg-Zahl replied that the Councils would be provided the complete list and asked to give their recommendations.