This book contains information about our planning process for Administrative Systems upgrades which eventually lead to MICA Connected.
Our initial planning for PeopleSoft 9.0 upgrades got off to a late start. Some concrete discussions did not start taking place until after the HEUG Conference in March 2006.
In April 2006, we distributed a document to senior administation that summarized the issues and options for our enterprise systems. Over the next few months this document was reviewed by the Administrative Technology Advisory Committee.
This group spoke at length about departmental technology needs and functionality offered in the newer versions of PeopleSoft. By July 2006 the Administrative Technology Advisory Committee was resolute in their recommendation that the college move forward with upgrades to the 9.0 version of PeopleSoft Enterprise applications.
Primary Focus:
The Administrative Technology Advisory Committee has been formed to bring together mid and upper level management from various departments across campus to discuss administrative systems and how technology can help us improve the quality of MICA's information, business processes and information systems.
The charge for this group is to provide a campus wide administrative technology planning and communication forum. ATAC will help establish goals, priorities and policies as they relate to administrative systems. They will provide direction and recommendations about technology work plans for non-academic functions. The committee will also serve as the core team for project implementations including system upgrades and enhancements.
Key Tasks:
- Establish and refine priorities for campus wide non-academic technology initiatives
- Review and assess progress on technology projects
- Build technology implementation plans
- Serve as the core implementation team for administrative system upgrades
- Develop and review campus-wide policies as they relate to administrative systems
- Establish goals and expected results related to administrative technology
- Solicit feedback and communicate administrative technology plans with senior administration and other staff in home departments
Members:
When appropriate, ad-hoc committees will be formed and may include representatives from other areas across campus.
Assistant Dean, Student Academic Services & Registrar
(interim replacement: Director of Student Records)
Associate VP Constituent Relations
Associate VP for Financial Aid
Associate Dean, Academic Affairs
Dean of Continuing Studies
Director of Human Resources
Director of Student Accounts
Director Undergraduate Admission or Director, Admission Operations
Interim Associate Dean of Students
Accounting Manager
Coordinator: Susan Miltenberger, Assistant VP for Technology
Phase two of our planning process started in August 2006 when we made a presentation to the campus leadership about our upgrade plans. The presentation was based on the initial "Future Direction" document that was distributed in April and had the support of the Administrative Technology Advisory Committee.
The President and other members of the executive staff raised questions about our upgrade strategy and the associated costs. Concerns about Oracle's product direction and commitment to small campuses were also voiced.
As a result, we were asked to go back to the drawing board and bring back information about alternate scenarios that did not include staying on with our Oracle/PeopleSoft Enterprise systems. Find out more by reading Susan and Ted's Most Excellent Adventure.
During September and October 2006, we embarked on a high speed (and thorough) assessment of ERP systems. Systems we looked at include:
Our research consisted of: calls and visits with vendors, calls and visits with other institutions, reading (journals, surveys, white papers, etc.) and attending Educause in early November 2006.
We found three types of systems:
But more valuable than our findings on other ERPs was the reinforcement that MICA did not need a different ERP, but we did need a different approach to how we manage, maintain and utilize our current systems. This was the beginning of MICA Connected.
Our final proposal on the upgrade approach had to include a more cost effective solution for completing the projects. By putting the goal of maximizing value from our technology investment at the front of our strategy we were able to define a new strategy for success.
The pillars of our proposal were:
consistent institutional commitment from the senior administration to complete the upgrades in-house
In December 2006, a number of regional small college CIOs and their staffs met at Gettysburg College to discuss strategies for moving (or not moving) to Oracle Fusion products.
In December 2006, a number of regional small college CIOs and their staffs met at Gettysburg College to discuss strategies for moving (or not moving) to Oracle Fusion products.
The following colleges were represented:
Frederick Community College
Gettysburg College
Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA)
University of Baltimore
Our intent is to collectively glean as much information as possible to help us in our strategic decisions, collaborate as much as possible, and leverage our collective might to shape the future of technology at small colleges and universities.
Our next meeting will be held at MICA on April 25.
At our April 2007 meeting we talked about formalizing the role and scope of the Small College Regional Work Group.
Steve Lewis of Gettysburg College has drafted a small college white paper and has asked for feedback. Visit the Gettysburg site to get the most current copy.
At our April 2007 meeting, Ted Simpson suggested that we write a companion paper for EDUCAUSE based on this topic. The advantage is that, unlike HEUG, EDUCAUSE is vendor-agnostic, so any paper published will not require the approval of Oracle.
Read the EDUCAUSE working paper here.
In April 2007, a number of regional small college CIOs and their staffs met at MICA to discuss strategies for moving (or not moving) to Oracle Fusion products.
The following colleges were represented:
Coppin State University
Frederick Community College
Gettysburg College
MICA (Maryland Institute College of Art)
University of Baltimore
Out of this meeting grew the need to break out the group into three segments (which may overlap):
1. CIO Level: the recommendation is that the CIOs from the member institutions would meet 2-3 times a year to discuss strategic approaches to ERP planning (University of Baltimore to host next CIO meeting in Fall 2007 (?))
2. Director Level: the recommendation is that this group (which would include members whose job it is to make strategic plans and operation reality) meet more regularly to handle collaboration opportunities, resource sharing, creation of best practices, etc. (we need a volunteer to host)
3. User Level: the recommendation is that this group meet quarterly (?) and act as a regional user group. (MICA offers to host the first group in late May, 2007)
Proposed Research Areas:
Business Cases
Given that we will be technologically enabled to improve business processes, how will each area accomplish this and benefit? How will new capabilities be utilized to improve business?
Best Practices
Who does what you do better than you? Who doesn’t do it as well as you? What are you doing right now to bridge those gaps? (One thing that we really need to stress is that we, MICA, may very well be defining best practices for ERP implementations at small colleges!)
Strategy
Where can we be institutionally in 2-5 years because of this technological capability? Is that communicated adequately to you and from you?
Recurring Themes:
Communication and integration between departments
Measurable differences/business indicators
“Business before technologyâ€Â
“There must be a better wayâ€Â
“Policy before functionalityâ€Â
Proposed Deliverable
A published Effective Practice document/white paper
“The EDUCAUSE resource center includes a repository of effective practices that are in place and working on campuses throughout the world. Your contribution will make your achievements more visible.â€Â
Effective Practice Submission
Title
Background/Challenge
Briefly provide background information and/or describe the challenge that led to implementing your practice/solution.
Practice/Solution
Briefly describe the practice or solution that addressed the above.
Benefits
Describe the benefits.
Shortcomings
Describe the shortcomings.
Future Plans
Please share related future plans.
References
You may list up to five complete public URLs and attach files to provide more information about your practice/solution (e.g., campus reports, a Web site supporting the practice/solution, a paper or presentation describing the practice/solution in more detail).
Files
Add any attachments necessary to further illustrate your practice (e.g., PDF, Word document)
Costs
Estimate the costs of implementing the practice/solution including human resources (in person hours).
Replicable
On a scale of one to five, indicate how replicable your practice/solution would be by another campus.
Effectiveness
On a scale of one to five, indicate how effectively your practice/solution addressed the campus need.