Committee on Academic Policy and Procedures

Meeting Notes February 22, 2006

Attending:

Kevin Donnelly (AG), Al Cochran (PROVOST), Maureen Herspring (AR), Michael Crow (REG), Alison Wheatley (AS), Gunile DeVault (REG), Monty Neilsen (REG), Ray Hightower (EN) Alice Trussell (FS/AAC), Karen Pence (HE), David Delker (TC), Carol Shanklin (GR), Lynn Ewanow (AR), Shanna Pumphrey (AS), Tom Herald (FS)

Ray Hightower opened the meeting for discussion of needs for information provided by the present SIS screens.

  • SIS codes: we need to identify essential data needed by role (level and responsibility) – deans, staff. In some situations, deans have authority but delegate action to staff.
  • Additional administrative support may be needed campus-wide for iSIS. (The university’s 4% administrative cost cited on the K-State website may have to grow to 5%!)
  • Will it be possible to consolidate data elements from different SIS screens to provide more usable screens (e.g., to be able to access one screen instead of several for commonly used info)?
  • Include student e-mail addresses on screens.
  • Those who use FAM (financial aid) screens need to review those screens also.
  • Delker: for general inquiry screens, is it possible to highlight Directory Information?
  • Goal of screen review: to determine what is needed and how the system is used.
  • Herspring is using a spreadsheet to gather need/use information from SIS users in AR. She will send spreadsheet in electronic format to Ray for distribution to the task force.
  • Crow: iSIS screens are to be determined. Self-service screens may provide some needed info.
  • Shanklin summarized: identify critical needs, most frequently used information, how information is used, by whom.
  • Crow: some information may be better accessed in report format.
  • Donnelly: much of our work is with one student at a time, requires immediate access, and may involve multiple systems (SIS, FAM, DARS)
  • Delker: we need information for special reports (e.g., BOR review, accreditation documents) – will we be able to generate our own reports? (Mike: maybe “on down the road” – reporting is complicated.)
  • Delker: what about advisers lists? Standard report but needs continual updating and sorting in different ways.
  • Hightower: what about list of students enrolled in a CURR? Rank in CURR? Average gpa in CURR? Rank in program and average gpa in program are frequently requested by employers.
  • Hightower suggested identifying four or five high priority screens and generating a chart for each indicating what is used and by whom (dean, staff, dept, faculty).
  • Delker: Can there be a “favorites” list (as on Internet) for quick link to frequently used screens? (Mike Crow: possible)
  • Nielsen: some reports will be standard, and some will be special requests. The concept of “data warehouse” has been discussed but would require additional staff.
  • Crow distributed a suggested format for tracking iSIS registration and records policy and procedure modifications and issues.
  • Crow: the DARS bridge is not going well. There will be an update at the next meeting.
  • Herspring: iSIS terminology is a problem and likely to irritate students and faculty. Donnelly shared recent e-mails received from on-going testing that made little sense. The decisions on e-mail notification or self-service notification were noted as being significant.
  • Ewanow: both publicity and practical training are important issues. How will faculty be brought along?
  • Hightower: Al Cochran has talked with Jennifer Ghert about publicity plans. She’ll meet with the group at a later time.
  • Crow: “Go-live” dates may be delayed.

Assignment:

Identify three to five high priority SIS screens and generate a chart for each indicating what is used and by whom.

Herspring’s sample spreadsheet will be helpful to gather data for chart. Hightower will aggregate charts.

Chart:

SIS > DUG > SRDI > (identify components used and by whom, for what)