1. Using the Banner Workflow Process to Validate Security Roles
Susan McCaffrey
Director-Academic Affairs
Banner Competency Center
Temple University

2. Thank you for your cooperation
General Announcements:
Please turn off all cell phones/pagers
If you must leave the session early, please do so as discreetly as possible
Please avoid side conversations during the session
Questions will be answered …..
Thank you for your cooperation

3. CPE Credits - We’ve gone electronic!
To receive CPE credits for this session (if eligible), complete the CPE Attendance Form on the PABUG Annual Conference website
or via the PABUG conference app.
For additional questions please contact
Lora Harper CPE - Coordinator

4. Temple University Total student population: 38,297 Total staff:
Full time and Part time Faculty:
Full time staff and administration: 4267
Total degrees conferred in : 9136
Total freshman to sophomore retention rate: 90%

5. Oh no! An internal audit request!
Step 1: Don’t panic
Step 2: Define the request
Step 3: Examine the tools
Step 4: Build the process
Step 5: Go

6. Define the request
Each supervisor must validate that every direct report with access to STUDENT information within Banner (SSB or INB) should maintain this access or have access revoked.
Find all users with specific classes related to student system
Maintenance or Query access to direct objects defined within Security Classes
Classes are usually grouped within User Profiles
Advisor role defined on SIAINST
Query included data elements from various systems (HR and Student) as well as Portal information; DBAs created a table and an ad hoc process that, when run, would display supervisor’s response.
Individual’s department and job title
Supervisor information
Contact information
Last log on information
SIAINST information
Survey results

7. Examine the tools
Once population is selected, develop a method to survey the supervisors and collect results in a manageable way.
Evaluated our available resources: Qualtrics vs Workflow. We needed:
Communication tool to supervisors with specific information about each employee
Method for confirming or revoking access
Method to store responses
Communication to Competency Center (me) and Information Security to relay action needed

8. Examine the tools Workflow was chosen because:
Data from tables could supply the initial population to the workflow
Results from survey could be saved in same table and could be refreshed in audit view
could be customized and sent to supervisors for each employee.
could direct supervisors to a Banner workflow link to complete their task; automatic provisioning could occur within the workflow rules.
Requests for continued access: written to a table
Requests for revocation: sent to my Workflow (Banner) account
After my review, the request could be submitted to Information Security’s Workflow link

9. Build the Process Combining the various features of the product
Create the table and set up the ad hoc process to refresh data (DBA team)
1448 employees to be evaluated (including about 100 student workers)
451 supervisors, including 31 student worker supervisors would receive notices
Create the to the supervisors
Create the workflow
Create the provisioning process
Review with Information Security; set launch and deadline dates
Test, test, test GO

10. Behind the scenes: Workflow diagram

11. to supervisors

12. Portal Workflow link

13. Worklist views

14. Supervisor confirmation

15. If supervisor REVOKED access, an email alert directed me to my Worklist

16. I reviewed notes, unchecked the Advisor role in Banner and then hit “Complete”

17. The final step sent the request to the Office of Information Security
This team removed the Banner security classes for the individual and then process is considered complete.

18. What could possibly go wrong?
This initaitive was launched in early June and we quickly realized that many of the faculty chairs were not on campus.
In order to access the workflow through our Portal, network security was needed.
An additional was sent explaining how to access our Portal through Citrix
Additionally, some supervisory changes had occurred after we had gathered our initial dataset and the s did not go to the CURRENT supervisor
Consequently, some faculty advisors and staff required assistance…

19. As an intervention, I found their specific employee within the Student Security Audit process by using “Workflow Status Search” …

20. …and then, within the workflow…

21. …I selected “Reserve for Self” and then completed the request in lieu of the supervisor

22. At any given time, I could see which requests were “Ready” or “Completed”

23. Results?
After one “lagging” to remind the supervisors, our compliance was high
At our deadline, 110 employees had their access revoked due to job changes
At our deadline there were 107 employees who had not been reviewed
Using the data from the ad hoc process, I was able to identify the supervisors and followed up with s to supervisors or Associate Deans and manually entered their responses in the workflow.
Within three months, we had 100% compliance

24. Future Security Access project

25. Access to Protected Information

26. Submit request for access

27. Request Sent to Supervisor, Dean’s Designee, Collaboration Center, Security

28. Email messages for each action and at completion

29. Open to the Floor
Questions
Comments

30. Please take time to complete our Conference and Session evaluations
Please take time to complete our Conference and Session evaluations. YOUR INPUT MATTERS!!!

31. Session Title
Presenter Name