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

2. Your Presenters
Andrea Beesing Assistant Director, IT Security, Cornell University
Liz Salley
Product Manager, Identity and Access Management, University of Michigan
Renee Shuey
Identity and Access Management Lead, The Pennsylvania State University

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

4. University of Michigan MCommunity Project
Liz Salley
Product Manager, Michigan Administrative Information Services and Functional Lead of MCommunity Identity and Access Management Project
Luke begin the presentation with this slide.

5. 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.

6. Data & Governance: Beginnings
Data policies . U-M has long-standing policies and a structure for institutional data stewardship and management.
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.

7. 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.

8. Data & Governance: Key Outcomes
Strong vs. weak identities
Vocabulary: How do we talk to campus about what this means?
Minimum data standards
Identity lifecycle
Liz will present this slide.

9. 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”
Liz will present this slide. Then we can go to Steve for questions.

10. 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.