1. Student Information System (SIS)/Portal Status Update Presentation to the UTFAB Monday, November 15, 2004 5-6:30 PM, Weber 202 Bill Haid, Dir. Enrollment Services, William.Haid@Colostate.edu, 1-3466William.Haid@Colostate.edu Don Hesser, Dir. Information Systems, Don.Hesser@Colostate.edu, 1-5491Don.Hesser@Colostate.edu

2. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update2 Outline Background “Before and after” architectures Project description Progress to date and portal demo Budget status and COF Summary

3. Background

4. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update4 Overview Aged student system, ISIS, requires replacement 15 years old - not a modern, “real-time” system Very intensive of staff time; limits progress in other areas Runs on a mainframe together with FRS and several other applications The SIS needs dedicated hardware RAMweb (quasi-portal) Complex interactions with eID and ISIS System “constraints” exceeded during periods of heavy load At the start of every semester In Aug. 04 intentionally “broke” the eID association, will continue to do so during periods of heavy load Additional enhancements very difficult due to ISIS and staffing limitations

5. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update5 Overview (cont’d) Integration of admin. systems from SCT Banner Student Info. Sys. – “Aries” Luminis portal – “RamPoint” Banner financial being considered… September 2003 UTF funding approved by ASCSU President University administration approval Multi-year contracts executed

6. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update6 Benefits of a New SIS More “horsepower” SSN not used as Student PID Closer to 24 x 7 access to RAMweb services New web registration system Degree Audit (GUIDE) on the web Improved advising support for faculty and students Fewer places to maintain personal data Example - addresses integrated into one system More web service options

7. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update7 Analysis of a New SIS (Banner) SCT Banner is the only viable solution for CSU Oracle SIS is not appropriate Half to one-third the cost of PeopleSoft However, Banner is not a perfect fit, it requires: Significant local programming 3 rd -party software to fill some gaps A huge implementation effort

8. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update8 Benefits of a University Portal Single point of entry to CSU services RamWeb, single sign-on WebCT, single sign-on WebMail, but not single sign on Customized and personal content Student and Faculty tab sets Personalize by adding channels and tabs 135 locally-developed channels Personal calendar Group and course communication tools Much better than listservs Email to members File sharing, photo posting Chat and message board Announcements and news Group-specific calendars Framework for accessing new SIS

9. “Before and After” Architectures

10. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update10 Current SIS/RAMweb Architecture – “Before”

11. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update11 Proposed Banner/Luminis architecture – “After”

12. Project Description

13. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update13 Project Organization - Committees Executive sponsors Executive directors Project managers Portal teams Content team Technical team Training team SIS teams Application team Technical team See detailed handouts from B. Haid “All the king’s horses,…”

14. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update14 Project Schedule Highlights Feb 04 - Portal focus groups Apr 04 – Project kick off Fall 04 – Portal phase 1 Fall 05 – Portal phase 2 Fall 06 – Banner in use for student systems Fall 06 - Portal phase 3 (integration with Banner) Hand out and note detailed project schedule

15. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update15 The “Split” of Costs 1-time costs – the University covers 100% $5.4 million!!! Annual recurring costs - split 50% each University: $392,050/yr. (1 st year cost) UTF: $392,050/yr. (1 st year cost) Staffing reviewed every year Plus modest inflation Total cost “proportions” over 5 years University: ~80% UTF: ~20%

16. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update16 UTFAB Prior Commitments UTFAB committed to the following costs in Fall 2003: Recurring contractual costs, plus inflation 5 years for the SIS upgrade 3 years for the portal UTFAB to consider staffing costs annually

17. Progress to Date

18. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update18 Progress on the SIS Hardware and software installed. Business Process Analysis – many CSU processes have been reviewed and refined. Banner functional training continues. Mapping of existing SIS data to Banner in progress. Proceeding to build “bridges” between old and new systems. CSU will be an “early adopter” of Banner version 7!!! Upgrade to Banner that provides expanded functionality. Forming a Faculty/Advisor group to examine Banner, RamPoint, and WebCT tools.

19. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update19 Progress on the Portal Active portal teams: 1) technical and 2) content Development during spring and summer 2004 “Quiet launch” followed by “noisy launch” completed in fall 2004 http://rampoint.colostate.edu Content will be added in FY 05 Issues: Calendaring systems Improved WebMail (may be difficult) Messaging “threads” Portal course tools, WebCT, & Banner Course Tools Better integration with WebCT

22. Funding Approved for FY 05 (This Current Year) - $392,050

23. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update23 Staffing for FY 05 Portal Developer – ES Student Employees - ES Portal Java Developer - ACNS Sun (Unix) System Administrator and Web Applications Specialist – ACNS & IS DBA (Database Administrator) – IS

24. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update24 Observations to Date Lessons learned SCT is used to providing end-to-end, integrated solutions, that involve additional 3 rd -party software packages, for “smaller” schools At CSU, we have found that the additional software packages provide neither the necessary functionality nor integrate with our large-school IT environment Therefore, significant additional programming by CSU staff is required In part, this is why the approved budget was under- expended last year Also, the budget for FY 05 may be under-expended

25. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update25 College Opportunity Fund Legislation (SB 189) went into effect July 2004 The way that the state will fund public higher education 145 eligible credit stipend limit, +30 for BA or BS Institutional waivers @ 5% CCHE waivers for cause Performance contracts Estimate $5 million/yr. to in-state, CSU students Total in-state tuition - COF Stipend (est. $80/credit-hour for next year) Student’s portion of in-state tuition An additional requirement – part of the SIS not anticipated last spring

26. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update26 COF Staffing Need Implementation of COF Has to be done twice, on our existing SIS and on Aries!!! Additional staff are required to implement the College Opportunity Fund (COF), and simultaneously to meet the Aries project timeline The University has already dedicated additional staff to the project, but more are needed Implementing COF could delay Aries a year Delay the functionality enhancements of Aries Could add ~$1 million to the cost of the project

27. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update27 Request Maintain the total approved budget of $392,050 In lieu of purchasing additional applications that do not meet our needs UTFAB approve us substituting additional staffing costs to implement the COF

28. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update28 COF Staffing Proposal Project Leader Define, manage and operate the project Manage all the pieces according to the project timeline Implementer Mostly for student support Students will have to register with the COF program Batch transaction files for 17,000 students: queries, invoices, and end-of-term reconciliations

29. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update29 Staffing Costs for FY 05 UTF approved staffing $146,558 Proposed Additional COF staffing Project leader 8 mos $25,000 COF support 6 mos $15,000 COF Total $40,000 Total staffing request $186,558

31. Summary

32. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update32 UTFAB Funding Criteria 1. Benefit as many students as possible All students at CSU will benefit. 2. Ability to effectively utilize the fee Your decision. 3. Not funded by CFTCheck. 4. Adherence to budget and accountability Your decision. 5. Potential for direct student use Absolutely. 6. Effort and thought reflected in the plan Your decision. 7. Justification and clarity of project plan Your decision.

33. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update33 Perspective Upgrading the SIS and a portal is the only way for the University to evolve to a modern, real-time IT environment The portal/SIS will fundamentally enhance the ways we interact, communicate, and store, archive, disseminate and access data and information The project is going exceptionally well – it is on schedule and on budget

34. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update34 Thank You The UTF and student support provided the critical impetus for the project The need for a new system is great We request your feedback on COF staffing Thank you for your support!

35. UTFAB - 11/15/2004SIS/Portal Update35 Discussion and Questions Are most welcome.