Environmental Scan: What Policy and Process Approaches Work (and Don't Work)?

Your Presenters Andrea Beesing (amb3@cornell.edu) Assistant Director, IT Security, Cornell University Liz Salley (salley@umich.edu) Product Manager, Identity and Access Management, University of Michigan Renee Shuey (rshuey@psu.edu) Identity and Access Management Lead, The Pennsylvania State University

Agenda Andrea, Liz, and Renee will each review policy and process considerations, focusing on: Governance Stakeholder Engagement Id & Access Management Team Structure Q&A

University of Michigan MCommunity Project Liz Salley (salley@umich.edu) Product Manager, Michigan Administrative Information Services and Functional Lead of MCommunity Identity and Access Management Project http://www.itcs.umich.edu/mcommunity/ Luke begin the presentation with this slide.

Project Structure UM IT-Commons Initiative. In 2003, IT Stewards urged leadership to invest in a enterprise directory infrastructure with the goal of improving campus-wdie service provisioning. Building the Business Case. In 2004, a joint project of UM’s IT Central Services (ITCS) and Administrative Information Services (MAIS) was launched. Implemention. In 2006, project was funded and a team established. Team resources have been allocated from both ITCS and MAIS, as well as the Health System, and our two smaller campuses (UM-Flint and UM-Dearborn.) Liz will begin the data & governance part of the presentation with this slide.

Data & Governance: Beginnings Data policies . U-M has long-standing policies and a structure for institutional data stewardship and management. http://www.mais.umich.edu/access/policies.html Unique ID in place. Existing IdM systems are already using a single, institutional Net ID (U-M "uniqname") and number ID (UMID). Single ERP system in place. Student and HRMS systems of record already transitioned from many separate mainframe applications to a single, integrated PeopleSoft ERP system. Liz will begin the data & governance part of the presentation with this slide.

Data & Governance: Convening a Team Governance Board convened before project was funded. Membership includes: Institutional data managers for student, employee, and alumni data IT directors and managers from representative schools, colleges, health system, and libraries IdM project leads from central IT units Established high-level scope and vision Championed the business case Confirm implementation decisions and priorites Liz will present this slide.

Data & Governance: Key Outcomes Strong vs. weak identities Vocabulary: How do we talk to campus about what this means? Minimum data standards Identity lifecycle http://www.itcs.umich.edu/itcsdocs/r1458/#identity Liz will present this slide.

Data and Governance: Key Outcomes Authority and accountability How do we enforce standards in a highly decentralized environment? (System enforcement vs. guidelines and best practices) Decentralized authority and accountability to ensure guidelines and best practices are followed Resources for IT directors See “MCommunity Sponsoring Authority Policies and Agreement” http://www.itcs.umich.edu/itcsdocs/r1460/ Liz will present this slide. Then we can go to Steve for questions.

Stakeholder Engagement Focus Groups. Early focus groups were conducted to raise awareness of the project initiative and to gather compelling user stories that shaped the business case for the project. Rotating Governance Board Membership. University delegated data mangers hold permanent position on the Board. Alpha Testers. Technical staff from several schools, colleges, and university units have served as early testers – essentially expanding the size and talent of our development team. Steering Team. Bi-monthly steering team meeting with project sponsors aligns project priorities with campus-wide priorities. Liz will begin the data & governance part of the presentation with this slide.