BUSINESS SERVICES COMMITTEE (BSC)
Meeting AgendaJune 28, 2013 1:30 – 3:00 pm
FAC 228D
I. Administrative Systems Subcommittee – Updates (Mark McFarland, Roy Ruiz, Julienne VanDerZiel, Pei Chen)
II. Administrative Systems Procurement and Shared Services – Status Update (Mary Knight)
III. ERP Staffing and Resource Subcommittee – Update (Shelby Stanfield)
Date: 6/26/13 1
Tech Arch Update for the BSC
Tech Arch II
Executive Summary
The Technical Architecture Task Force successfully completed the mission of submitting a Technical Architecture Recommendation on 5/1/13. The recommendation identified critical areas that needed to be addressed in greater detail in a follow on series of meeting called Tech Arch II. The timeline and sub-groups identified are shown below. Timeline:
Date Activity
5/1 Technical Architecture Recommendation Submitted
6/14 Tech Arch II Kick Off – Acting on next steps from the recommendation forming sub groups 6/17 Integration and Development Environment sub-groups active
8/9 ASMP Activity: ERP vendor is selected
8/12 Policy & Procedures and Data Warehouse sub-groups active 8/15 ASMP Activity: Letter of Instruction to Integrators
8/30 Submit High Level Diagram v2 if needed – based on ERP vendor selected, a Tech Arch I deliverable, and Integration and Development Environment recommendations
9/30 Select Integration and Development Environment technology solutions 10/31 Negotiate Integration and Development Environment purchases, and
Submit Detailed Level Designs
* The above timeline and activities is tentative at this time and may need to change to support the Letter of Instruction that will be sent out 8/15/13.
Sub Groups:
Sub Group (SG) / Purpose Membership Status
SG: Integration Architecture
Purpose: Planning and Recommendation for real-time and batch integrations to support the ERP transition and beyond.
(L) Cooper Henson – ITS Apps
Adam Connor, Greg Atkinson, Todd Graves,
Rainbow Di Benedetto, Eric Weigel, Curtis Pew, Rick Huff, Charlie Scott, Jeremy Cumbo, James McNiff, Louise Nelson, Paula May, Rich Janes, Sunil Narvekar.
Active
SG: Development Environment
Purpose: Planning and recommendations for a development environment that will support the UT IT community for the next ERP and non-ERP needs.
(L) Juan Ortiz – FIS,
Tim Brace, David Voegtle, Adam Connor, Greg Atkinson, Todd Graves, Viajy Thiruvengadam, Charlie Scott,
Anelle Harrison, Curtis Pew, Rick Huff, Robin (Rabindra) Kar.
Active
SG: Policies and Procedures
Purpose: Establishing the policies and procedures to support the next ERP. Where possible, on premise benchmarks can be leveraged as well as establishing new guidelines to support the cloud and how it is supported.
(L) Gregory Baker – ITS Sys (C) Chen, Huapei – ITS Sys
TBD – membership is still forming. Estimated start date: not before 8/9/13
Idle
SG: Data Warehouse
Purpose: Once the ERP vendor is known, the Data Warehouse Sub Group will deliver a strategy on the methods and frequency intervals to update the on-premise data warehouse.
(L) Vijayaraja Thiruvengadam – IQ, Rainbow Di Benedetto, Eric Weigel
Idle
Business Services Committee
Shared Services and
Administrative Systems Update
Friday, June 28, 2013
Agenda
Administrative Transformation Updates:
•
Shared Services
•
Administrative Systems Replacement
Questions & Answers
Shared Services
The practice of aggregating like-kind administrative
responsibilities and
insourcing
them to an internal
organization, often a newly constituted service
center of people providing like-kind service, to
improve operations and reduce cost. The insourced
service organization is managed by University
employees. The delivery and quality of the service
is managed by a representative governance
structure and by service level agreements between
the delivering and receiving organizations.
Shared Services Planning Project
The Shared Services Planning Project is the first
step in advancing Recommendation 3.1 of the
Business Productivity Final Report, “implement a
shared administrative services model.” Its
objectives are:
•
Define the service delivery model for Shared Administrative
Services
•
Design the future-state operating model for Finance,
Procurement, Human Resources and Information Technology
•
Develop the change management strategy
Shared Services Planning Project
Implementing a shared services model is
anticipated to achieve the following benefits:
•
Improve and streamline university business operations to
better serve constituents
•
Ensure appropriate controls are in place to comply with
required policies and regulations
•
Make better use of scarce resources to support teaching and
research activities core to UT’s mission
Shared Services – Timeline
April-Sept.
2013
1-4 years
Ongoing
May-Dec.
2012
6/12/2013
6
Business
Productivity
Committee
Shared
Services
Planning
Shared
Services
Plan
Dialogue
Shared
Services
Implementation
Shared
Services
Operations
Sept.-Dec.2013
Shared Services – Timeline (detail)
6/12/2013
7
Business
Productivity
Committee
Shared
Services
Planning
Shared
Services
Plan
Dialogue
Shared
Services
Implementation
Shared
Services
Operations
Shared services: Finance,
Procurement, HR, Payroll
Timeline – May to September
Functions in scope: Financial transactions, reconciliations,
travel and entertainment, collections, procurement,
requisition, accounts receivable, HR functions
Key activities
•
Current Activity:
Information gathering and identification of services to
include in the shared services model
•
Identify specific processes to include
•
Specify how the shared service organization will be structured
•
Define service level agreements and other measurements
Shared services: IT Workstream
Timeline – May to September
Functions in scope: End user support, application
maintenance, application development,
infrastructure maintenance, infrastructure
development
Key activities
•
Current Activity:
Information gathering and identification of
services to include in the shared services model
•
Identify specific processes to include
•
Specify how the shared service organization will be structured
•
Define service level agreements and other measurements
Shared Services Steering Committee
Name
Area Represented
Kevin Hegarty
Executive Sponsor
Brad Englert
Project Team
Mary Knight
Project Team
Tim Mould
Project Team, Accenture
Ryan Oakes
Project Team, Accenture
Jamie Wills
Project Team, Accenture
Charles Roeckle
President's Ofc
Randy Diehl
Dean - Large College - Liberal Arts
Tom Gilligan
Dean - Large College - McComb's Business
Alexa Stuifenbergen
Dean - Small College/School - Nursing
Erika Frahm
Staff Council - Chair
Jamie Southerland
Business Officer - Large College - Lib Arts
Joe Sosler
Business Officer - Small College/School -
Pharmacy
Cindy Brown
Business Officer - VP area - Research
Dan Slesnick
Provost's Office
Gage Paine
VP - Student Affairs
Pat Clubb
VP - University Operations/HR
Debra Kress
Human Resources
Scott Kelley
UT System Executive
Andrea Marks
UT System Campus - Business Officer
Edmund (Ted) Gordon
Faculty representative
Shared Services Subcommittees
The Shared Services subcommittees will be made up of
representatives from each of the areas affected in the
transformation: Human Resource Services, Payroll, Finance,
Procurement and Information Technology Services (ITS).
Preliminary plans are to establish four subcommittees related
to the three shared service functions identified by the Business
Productivity Committee. Customer Service will be a primary
focus.
•
Human Resources/Payroll
•
Finance/Procurement
•
Information Technology (IT)
Administrative Systems (ASMP)
ASMP Initiative Updates
•
Improve Design & Management of Data
•
Design & Build an Open Systems Tech
Environment
•
Adopt Common Software Development
Methodology
Improve Design and Management of
Data- Status (ASMP 1.2)
‾
Data Access Governance Policy
•
Provost and CFO distributed Data Access Governance Policy and
Data Management Standards – May 2013
•
Data Management Committee (DMC) will be formed from current
IQ Steering Committee –
In Progress
•
DMC to develop data access and use policies as outlined in the
Administrative System Replacement and
Request for Proposal Schedule
Who will be involved in the ERP
Selection?
ERP Evaluation Team
Name
Area(s) Represented
Debra Kress
Functional - HR/Univ Operations
Brad Englert
Technical - CIO
Renee Wallace
Functional - Provost/Faculty
Jamie Southerland
Functional - College
Mary Knight
Functional - Financial/Payroll/IQ
Juan Ortiz
Administrative IT Leaders (AITL)
Representative
Subject Matter Experts (SME) for ERP Evaluation
(DRAFT – Representation In Progress)
SME Group
Functional -
Processing
Functional - End User
Technical
General Ledger,
Finance
Lee Miara, Elvia
Rosales
Heather Pruitt - H&F,
Cindy Brown,
Research
Susan Telge, Louise
Nelson
Budget
Elvia Rosales,
Ashley Nemec
Kathy Foster
Athena Reynolds
Purchasing,
Contracts,
Receiving,
Vendor File
Brenda Black,
Kristin Schroter
Ricardo Medina - NS,
Wes Queen - Eng
Emily Buschang,
Susan Telge
Subject Matter Experts (SME) for ERP Evaluation
(DRAFT – Representation In Progress)
AR, Billing
Karen Deroeun,
Lois Stahlke
Heather Pruitt - H&F,
Cindy Brown,
Research
Mark Barber
AP, Travel,
Scholarships,
Tax
Cindy Gregg,
Cynthia Roberts
Bob Wolfkill - GS,
Margaret Hill,
Nursing, Egidio
Leitao- SW
Annie Ervin, Susan
Telge
Asset
Management
Janie Kohl, Andy
Gordon
Steven Miller - LAITS
Laura Manuel,
Susan Telge
SME Group
Functional -
Subject Matter Experts (SME) for ERP Evaluation
(DRAFT – Representation In Progress)
SME Group
Functional -
Processing
Functional - End User
Technical
Cash
Management,
Risk
Management
John Walker, Kim
Wicheta
n/a
Susan Telge
Post Award
Finance
Jason Richter
Cindy Brown -
Research
Annie Ervin
Payroll
Leslie Saucedo
Subject Matter Experts (SME) for ERP Evaluation
(DRAFT – Representation In Progress)
SME Group
Functional -
Processing
Functional - End User
Technical
HR, Benefits
Claire Knauth
Kelly Lomasney
Adrienne
Howarth-Moore
Karen Chawner
Jim McElroy
Elisabeth Egbert
Leslie Saucedo
Carmen Shockley
Jeff Evelyn -
Architecture,
Margaret Hill -
Nursing
Rich Janes,
Jerome LeBlanc,
Jenn Shipman
Subject Matter Experts (SME) for ERP Evaluation
(DRAFT – Representation In Progress)
SME Group
Functional - Processing
Functional - End User
Technical/Business
Kim Wicheta -
Accounting, Heather
Hanna - User Services,
Rich Janes - TRECS ,
Cooper Henson - ITS
Applications, Mark
Barber - FIS
Subject Matter Experts (SME) for ERP Evaluation
(DRAFT – Representation In Progress)
SME Group
Functional - Processing
Functional - End User
Technical/IT
Cam Beasley - ISO
Eric Weigel - ITS Systems
Julienne Van Der Ziel - IT
Applications, Adam
Connor - FIS, Lori Slater -
FIS, Vijay
Thiruvengadam-IQ
Implementation Partner
Evaluation Team
Name
Area(s) Represented
Kathy Foster
Functional - Provost/Academic Business
Mark McFarland
IT - College
Shelby Stanfield
Functional and IT - Student
Kristi Fisher
Functional and IT - Provost/IMA/IQ
Marla Martinez
Functional - Univ Operations
1. Backfilling positions for core functions
2.
Incentives for project and backfill staffing
3.
Addressing any current equity/market adjustment needs
4.
Numbers and types of new positions needed
5.
Training program needs and skillsets required
6. Strategy for focusing resources on the transition plan and high university
priorities and developing policies for limiting lower priority system
enhancements
The ERP Staffing and Resource Planning
subcommittee will be charged with developing
recommendations for:
Staffing and Resource Planning Subcommittee
Name
Area Represented
Shelby Stanfield , Chair
BSC/Registrar
Julienne VanDerZiel
ITS Applications/AITL
Elvia Rosales
Budget
Elisabeth Egbert
HR
Jim McElroy
HR
Athena Reynolds
Budget/AITL
Roy Ruiz
TRECS/AITL
Cindy Brown
BSC/Research
Raul Villa
Payroll/AITL
Leslie Saucedo
Payroll
Renee Wallace
BSC/Provost
Carmen Shockley
Provost
Rich Janes
TRECS/AITL
Tracy Brown
Provost/AITL
Shan Evans
Registrar/AITL
Cassidy Santaguida
ITS Training Program
Rainbow Di Benedetto
IQ/AITL
Lori Slater
FIS/Systems Analyst
Juan Ortiz
FIS/AITL
Pei Chen
ITS/Systems
Lee Miara
Accounting
Transforming UT: Business Productivity
Initiative:
http://www.utexas.edu/transforming-ut
Website and Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs) for Administrative
Systems
Administrative Systems FAQs:
http://www.utexas.edu/transforming-
ASMP Communications Task Force Volunteers
Name
Organization
Tracy DeMont (Chair)
Financial Information Systems
Egidio Leitao
School of Social Work
Helen Mayhew
College of Liberal Arts
Vijay Raghavan
University Athletics
Raul Villa
Payroll Services
Sara Bircher
Technology Resources
E-Mail Distribution List:
Request: New BSC Reporting Group
Mary Knight is requesting that the Business Services Committee (BSC) sanction the formation of an “Administrative Business Leaders (ABL)” group to parallel Administrative IT Leaders (AITL) group, reporting to the BSC.
Reason: Planning in the Shared Services project has highlighted that the administrative business directors do not currently have a channel to provide input into the IT governance structure. Since business processes and policies are both impacted by and informative to IT decisions, a standing group would provide increased robustness to IT decision-making. In addition to the Shared Services project, the ERP project would benefit from input by this group.
The following individuals have been identified as directors of business process areas in the administrative units and possible members of the ABL.
Karen Chawner (HR)
Jennifer DeLeon (Procurement) Claire Knauth (HRMS)
Thea Lyssy (Information Management) Jim McElroy (HR)
Lee Miara (Accounting) Elvia Rosales (Budget) Leslie Saucedo (Payroll) Brenda Schuman (Registrar) Carmen Shockley (Provost’s Office) John Walker (Cash Management) Kim Wicheta (Policy and Administration) Admissions??
ERP Staffing and Resource Planning Subcommittee
Wednesday, June 26
9:00am – 10:00am
CharterCreate one-page recommendations for each that outline the fundamental principles pertaining to the topics below. The recommendations should include the communication strategy, stakeholder groups, and forums to disseminate this information. These recommendations will aid in informing the unit directors the considerations to take into account for planning purposes related to the ASMP.
Deadline
September 1, 2013
Topics
1. Backfilling positions for core functions 2. Incentives for project and backfill staffing
3. Addressing any current equity/market adjustment needs 4. Numbers and types of new positions needed
5. Training program needs and skillsets required
6. Governance and prioritization model for resource demands 7. Work/Life balance during long-term project and assignments
1
DATE: JUNE XX, 2013 TO: DEANS’ COUNCIL
VICE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL FROM: [CLICK HERE AND TYPE NAME] RE: [CLICK HERE AND TYPE SUBJECT]
In January, the Committee on Business Productivity released their report “Smarter Systems for a Greater UT.” A key recommendation in the report is an investment in new administrative systems. During the multi-year transition to the new systems, business and technical resources will be allocated toward the design and implementation of the future processes and supporting technology. Although a comprehensive resource management plan will be developed to ensure operational stability, we need to be mindful about what changes are made to the current environment.
To that end, we will need total campus involvement and support to guide the prioritization of changes to the current administrative systems. Modifications to the systems will be limited to regulatory mandates and strategic initiatives during the transition. Our operational resources will be focused only on system changes with the highest institutional need.
I appreciate your support, patience and leadership during this transformation. More information about the administrative systems replacement can be found on the “Transforming UT” website: http://www.utexas.edu/transforming-ut.
1
DATE: JUNE XX, 2013
TO: [CLICK HERE AND TYPE NAME]
FROM: MARY KNIGHT, BUSINESS SERVICES COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR KRISTI FISHER, BUSINESS SERVICES COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR RE: ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS SUPPORT THROUGHOUT TRANSITION
On January 29 2013, President Powers and Provost Leslie announced the need for total campus involvement and support to guide the prioritization of changes to the current administrative systems. On behalf of the Business Services Committee (BSC), I wanted to follow-up with an update on the ASMP Systems Replacement effort.
Last month, we posted the first Request for Proposal (RFP) associated with the ASMP System Replacement effort. Over 200 representatives across campus participated in the development of requirements included in the solicitation. As we prepare for the multi-year transition to the new systems, we need to continue institutional-wide collaboration. This total campus involvement and support will be crucial in, not only implementing the systems, but providing operational excellence and continuity of services throughout the transition.
During the transition, business and technical resources will be allocated toward the design and implementation of the future processes and supporting technology. Hiring and training the resources required to sustain continuity of university services as well as contribute to our systems implementation will continue to be a challenge. Therefore, we need to work together to reduce changes in the current administrative systems by prioritizing changes using the following guidelines.
Modifications to the systems will be limited to:
Regulatory mandates
Strategic initiatives with the highest institutional need
Modifications to systems and services that will simplify processes and procedures; reducing complexity this simplifying the systems replacement
The BSC appreciates your support, patience and leadership during this transformation. Guidance will be forthcoming with respect to how changes will be reviewed, approved, and prioritized.
More information about the administrative systems replacement can be found on the “Transforming UT” website: http://www.utexas.edu/transforming-ut.
DATE: JUNE 24, 2013
TO: [CLICK HERE AND TYPE NAME] FROM: [CLICK HERE AND TYPE NAME] RE: [CLICK HERE AND TYPE SUBJECT]
1
Proposal
Wind down new development in existing administrative applications in order to strategically support the adoption of the replacement ERP.
Rationale
The development team will need to start preparing for the coming conversion to the ERP selected through the RFP process currently underway. We need to change our current culture and approach to recognize that we will not be able to accommodate all requests. We need a consistent decision making process that recognizes the following:
Existing systems with connections to ERP systems that will be replaced will need those connections updated/bridged to the new interface.
Systems that will not be replaced as part of the RFP, but are on the mainframe will need to be replaced.
Systems that will be replaced as part of the ERP RFP need to be stable to develop data mapping and a migration plan to transition.
University Operations applications being replaced will need to coordinate with applications that need to access information after the transition
Developers will need to be trained in new tool sets to be able to assist in the building of integration points, understand data extraction/import both during the transition and for maintenance after the implementation team has left.
There will be a number of data requests required to support the transition.
A plan will need to be developed and implemented to archive data in existing systems and also to provide a method to access the information. Note, the existing systems will not function once the mainframe is no longer available.
Exceptions
Blockers: A bug, without a reasonable workaround, preventing a must have process from moving forward.
Compliance with Legislation or Policy: Failure to change would lead to penalties greater than the cost of fixing.
Bridge: New coding needed as an interim connection to a new system implementation as part of the ASMP ERP.
Data requests: Internal and external data requests.
Non-ERP but Mainframe based: These applications will need a decisions as to whether or not they will need to be replaced or the function retired. If they continue, a parallel buy vs. build plan will need to be developed to replace them prior to the mainframe retirement.
Non- ERP and Non-Mainframe: We have a number of systems that are not part of the ERP RFP and do not reside on the mainframe. These systems should continue under a natural
development lifecycle with the understanding that most will require bridges to the chaining systems and the resources currently supporting them will likely need to be redirected to support the ERP transition.
UT Data Access Governance
Update
Data Governance Recap
•
Administrative Systems Master Plan (ASMP)
•
IQ Direct Access Project
•
IQ now under Purview of Business Services
Committee (BSC) as the Master Data Repository
(MDR)
– i.e. part of ITS Governance Structure
•
Data Access Governance Structure = IQ Steering /
Data Management Committee (DMC), with input
from Data Stewards and IQ, reporting to BSC…
Roles and Committees
Business Services Committee
(Data Trustees)
IQ Steering /
Data Mgmt. Committee
(Trustee and Steward
Representatives)
Stewards Committee
SME /
Analysts
IQ Team
IQ Sponsors
To OIT, SITAB
Address both
operational and data
access / MDR
concerns
Address only data
access and MDR
Data Management “Standards”
•
Issued by Provost and CFO per memo on May 1, 2013
•
Intended as starting point to be refined by DMC
•
Applies to “Institutional” Data:
–
Storage (efficient, protected, accessible)
–
Access (broad, appropriate, role-based)
–
Disclosure (purposeful, informed, approved)
•
Establishes / Formalizes:
–
IQ as Master Data Repository (“MDR”)
–
Data Management Committee (“DMC”)
–
Data Access Governance Policy
–
Role-based Authorization Schemes
Standards: Purpose
•
Purpose is to ensure:
–
Leaders have appropriate access for decisions
–
Institutional data are regarded as a key asset and
managed accordingly
–
Data are understood and used consistently
–
Roles and responsibilities are clear
–
Consumers are knowledgeable (laws, rules, etc.)
–
Data are stored and used efficiently, minimizing
Standards: Principles (1 of 2)
•
Guiding Principles for Policy:
a) Institutional Data is the
property
of the University of
Texas at Austin and shall be managed as a
key asset
b) Unnecessary
duplication
of Institutional Data is
discouraged
c) The
IQ database
will serve as the university’s Master
Data Repository (MDR)
d) Institutional Data are to be used only
for
operational purposes
and for the advancement of
the institutional mission
e) Institutional Data are
not to be released
to external
Standards: Principles (2 of 2)
•
Guiding Principles for Policy:
f)
Access to Institutional Data will be
“read-only”
g) Quality
standards
for Institutional Data will be defined
and monitored
h) Institutional Data shall be
protected
i)
Institutional Data shall be accessible according to
defined needs and roles
j)
Institutional
Metadata
will be recorded, managed, and
utilized
k) Institutional representatives will be
held accountable
to
their roles and responsibilities
l)
Resolution of issues related to Institutional Data shall
DMC Tasks for Summer 2013
•
Next Meeting 7/2 - Adopt Procedures
•
Create Workgroups:
–
Data Access Governance Policy
–
Data Roles/Access Matrix
–
Request / Approval Mechanisms
•
“Living” documents… don’t need to be
perfect… incorporate procedures for
modifications and additions
Example: DMC Procedures
•
Proposed DMC Procedures (example):
–
Administration, membership, Standards Implementation
Committee (STIC)
–
Request and/or Exemption Procedures and Criteria
–
Appeal Process
–
Requests for Redundant Storage
–
Roles and User Access
–
Data Classification
–
Security and Privacy
–
Training and Education
–
Requesting New Data
Example: Policy (1 of 2)
Table of Contents
•
Purpose
•
Authority*
•
Scope*
•
Definitions
•
Roles and Responsibilities
•
Governance Procedures
•
Implementation of Standards and Principles (more)
•
Related Documents, Links and Forms*
•
Contact Information
•
History and Revisions
Example: Policy (2 of 2)
**Implementation of Standards and Principles**:
–
IQ Master Data Repository
–
Access to Institutional Data
–
Use of Institutional Data
–
Release of Institutional Data
–
Access by Application Developers
–
Redundant Storage and Processing
–
Data Quality
–
Protection of Data
–
Metadata Management
–
Accountability
The University of Texas at Austin
Data Management Standards
OverviewThe Provost’s Office and the Office of Financial Affairs recognize the campus-wide need for broader and more robust access to institutional data to facilitate operations and inform strategic decision-making. This need is exemplified in the analytical work now being done in colleges and departments to achieve 4yr graduation rate targets; requests for institutional data (detailed, transactional) are significantly increasing. In addition, the Administrative Systems Master Plan (ASMP), recently adopted by IT Governance, calls for a more robust operational reporting solution and broader access to institutional data.
However, wholesale release of detailed unit-level data, and specifically student data, in the absence of thoughtful data governance policies, poses numerous risks to both individuals and the institution. Risks may be legal, political, or reputational and standard practices to avoid risks may not be uniformly coordinated or ensured.
The absence of clear data access policies also introduces potential inefficiencies in our operations, at great potential cost to both colleges and the institution as a whole. These inefficiencies may take the form of duplicated requests for datasets from steward offices, shadow databases proliferating throughout campus, and resulting redundancies in dedicated hardware, software, and personnel resources. Furthermore, accurate definitions, methodologies, and data integrity may be compromised when multiple versions of those data persist.
Institutional data must become much more broadly accessible, but with careful consideration of the requester’s role (need), type and level of data needed, and risks associated with those data. Therefore, it is imperative that institutional data governance be implemented as soon as possible, including: a comprehensive, detailed data access policy (HOP); a governing body with authority to make decisions regarding institutional data access; and a mechanism for requesting, approving, and releasing
institutional data.
Acknowledging broad and comprehensive institutional data is a strategic university asset, this document outlines newly created institutional Data Management Standards to govern the following institutional data activities:
• Storage – efficient, protected, accessible
• Access – broad, appropriate, role-based
• Disclosure – purposeful, informed, approved and includes a framework for establishing:
• IQ as the “Master Data Repository;”
• the Data Management Committee;
• a formal Data Access Governance Policy;
• Role-based Authorization schemes; and
The University of Texas at Austin
Data Management Standards
• Mechanisms for requesting (and approving) access to, and use of, institutional data
1. Purpose of Standards
The Data Management Standards (“Standards”) establish the structure and roles for Data Access
Government at the University of Texas at Austin and provide guiding principles for the work of governance committees in order to ensure:
a. Institutional leaders, (executive, administrative, and operational) have appropriate and timely access to detailed institutional data in order to make informed business and strategic decisions for their colleges, departments, or units in support of the institutional mission.
b. Sound information management practices are incorporated into all aspects of Institutional Data production, reporting, and analysis in order to provide appropriately robust access to accurate information for decision support.
c. Institutional Data is regarded as a highly-valued institutional asset and, as such, is effectively managed to achieve an appropriate level of stewardship.
d. The value of Institutional Data is maximized by making it more readily accessible and by increasing the understanding and consistent use of those data.
e. The roles and responsibilities for effective management of Institutional Data are clearly articulated and understood.
f. Consumers of Institutional Data are adequately educated regarding all university, state, and federal laws, policies and procedures that mandate and regulate the use or dissemination of those data, and risks involving the use or release of Institutional Data – legal, operational, individual, political, or reputational – are adequately mitigated.
g. Institutional Data are stored and used efficiently, eliminating or minimizing any redundancies in hardware, software, processes, reports, or analyses, and the efforts of personnel resources who support them.
2. Scope
These Data Management Standards (“Standards”) address the issues of (1) storage, (2) access, and (3) distribution of institutional data. The Standards are specifically applicable to “institutional data” extracted or derived from institutional administrative information systems and residing in the Master Data Repository (MDR) or an associated central administrative data store. The Standards are to be implemented in
accordance with, and deference to, existing UT computer, data and acceptable use policies, including but not limited to:
Acceptable Use Policy
http://www.utexas.edu/cio/policies/pdfs/AUP.pdf
Information Resources Use and Security Policy
http://www.utexas.edu/cio/policies/pdfs/Information%20Resources%20Use%20and%20Security%20Policy. pdf
The University of Texas at Austin
Data Management Standards
Data Classification Standardhttp://www.utexas.edu/cio/policies/pdfs/Data%20Classification%20Standard.pdf
Data Encryption Guidelines
http://www.utexas.edu/cio/policies/pdfs/Data%20Encryption%20Guidelines.pdf
3. Principles
The following principles are set forth as fundamental tenets that form the foundation for future
development of policies and procedures for data access governance at UT Austin. It is the responsibility of the Data Management Committee to develop and implement policies and procedures that reflect, refine, and address these principles:
a. Institutional Data is the property of the University of Texas at Austin and shall be managed as a key asset - Institutional Data will be managed through defined governance guidelines,
standards, policies and procedures that are appropriately communicated to campus stakeholders.
b. Unnecessary duplication of Institutional Data is discouraged - Data Stewards (defined below)
shall be responsible for making available Institutional Data from official Systems of Record, when reasonable and according to policies and procedures, in a manner that minimizes redundant storage and processing of those data in departmental and collateral repositories. Exceptions are allowed for purposes of business continuity and fail-over, only.
c. The IQ database will serve as the university’s Master Data Repository (MDR) – current IQ data
stores, technical infrastructure, and validation processes will be leveraged and modified as needed to provide appropriate data access, continuity, reporting, analysis, and decision support in a manner that minimizes the need for widespread duplication or redundant storage of Institutional Data.
d. Institutional Data are to be used only for operational purposes and for advancement of the institutional mission – Institutional assets are, first and foremost, intended for use in the pursuit
of institutional excellence. Therefore, as an asset, and particularly in times of lean resources, the availability and use of institutional data for the advancement of the institutional mission and improvement of operational efficiencies must be prioritized over individual needs, research endeavors, or external requests. To that end, institutional data will not be made available for non-operational research purposes without direct sponsorship by the institution and will not be made available for thesis or dissertation research, publication, or presentation without express written consent by the Data Management Committee on behalf of the Provost.
e. Institutional Data are not to be released to external entities without formal institutional approval – Institutional Data should not be used to respond to inquiries from external entities,
nor presented to external academic or professional audiences, nor published in any form external to institutional operations without express consent from the institution. The Data
The University of Texas at Austin
Data Management Standards
Management Committee will develop and publicize formal guidelines and processes for requesting and approving the release of Institutional Data.
f. Access to Institutional Data in the MDR (IQ) will be “read-only” - To the extent appropriate and
feasible, updates to Institutional Data will be performed in the System of Record and then automatically proliferated to the MDR via established transformation and load processing. This eliminates redundant processing, increases integrity, and provides better auditing capabilities. Only in exceptional cases, and with approval by the DMC, will analysts or systems be granted direct update capability in the MDR.
g. Quality standards for Institutional Data shall be defined and monitored – Data quality
standards shall be defined, published, communicated, managed and applied according to reliability and risk levels established by appropriate Data Stewards (defined below). Examples of data quality standards Include data validation rules, timeliness of updates, defined error rates, integrity monitoring processes, etc.
h. Institutional Data shall be protected - Institutional Data must be safeguarded and protected
according to approved security, privacy and compliance guidelines, laws and regulations established by the university or by state or federal agencies.
i. Institutional Data shall be accessible according to defined needs and roles - Institutional Data
and Metadata shall be accessible to all constituents in accordance with defined access and use policies and procedures determined by the Data Management Committee and Data Stewards (defined below). Users requesting access to Institutional Data shall be assigned to appropriate roles that have clearly documented guidelines In accordance with all university, state, and federal laws and regulations.
j. Institutional Metadata shall be recorded, managed, and utilized - Metadata will be used to
model, define and organize Institutional Data and will be published and communicated clearly and consistently in order to maximize the value of Institutional Data to university stakeholders. k. Institutional representatives will be held accountable to their roles and responsibilities - Roles
and responsibilities for data management will be clearly defined, and individuals assigned to specific roles will be held accountable to performing data management responsibilities as a part of their regular job duties.
l. Resolution of Issues related to Institutional Data shall follow consistent processes - The Data
Management Committee shall coordinate the resolution of issues related to risks, costs, access, management and use of Institutional Data, in consultation with the appropriate Data Stewards and Data Trustees.
4. Definitions
The following definitions are applicable to the principles, roles, and processes identified in these Standards and may vary slightly from those used in other IT policy statements or industry vernacular:
a. Institutional Data – any data element captured, extracted or derived from institutional administrative information systems or residing in the Master Data Repository (MDR) or an
The University of Texas at Austin
Data Management Standards
associated central administrative data store. Specifically, data captured and stored by source systems, or systems of record, or made available in the MDR or its affiliated databases. b. Institutional information - a collection of institutional data which may be derived, aggregated,
calculated, or contained In any form, Including but not limited to documents, memos, databases, spreadsheets, presentations, tables, charts, graphs, email and web sites. c. Institutional metadata – detailed information describing both the technical and business
characteristics of institutional data, including:
i. Definitions regarding the purpose, use and context of Institutional Data
ii. Identification of which system is the official system of record of Institutional Data iii. Identification of personnel responsible for management of Institutional Data iv. Descriptions of how Institutional Data Is transferred, derived, and stored
v. Specific security and privacy practices that are used to safeguard Institutional Data vi. Risk and compliance classifications for Institutional Data
vii. Rules concerning retention of records and Institutional Data
d. Source System or System of Record – the system by which any given institutional data originate, are captured, or are initially processed is the “source system.” The “system of record” is the authoritative system that defines and maintains a specific subset of institutional data (ex: the registration system is the system of record for student course enrollments). In most cases, the System of Record is also the Source System. However, there are cases in which source system data are further aggregated or refined to produce official institutional information, resulting in a separate authoritative System of Record for specific purposes (i.e. 12th Class Day data).
e. Master Data Repository (IQ) – the central data store to which data from operational systems (“systems of record”) are stored for broad-based (read-only) retrieval by campus users for the purpose of informing campus-wide decision-making. Data in the MDR are made available according to the “roles and access” matrix to be developed by the Data Management
Committee (DMC). Given that the IQ -Oracle database is well-established with efficient ETL and validation processes for a vast amount of existing operational data, IQ will become the Master Data Repository for UT.
f. Departmental and Collateral Repositories – any of a number of departmental databases or systems that redundantly store institutional data to support remote or independent processes for use in specific units (i.e. not for official institutional or campus-wide use). As referenced in this document, “repositories” refer to large-scale copies of massive amounts of data for further processing, such as on a recurring basis; small analytical databases, flat files, or excel versions of data used for specific analysis are not considered “repositories” by this definition.
g. Subject Area Domains - broad functional/operational areas for which major information systems and databases are defined (i.e. “Research,” “Faculty,” “Fee Billing,” Financial Aid,” “Admissions,” “Facilities,” etc.). Domains generally have one Data Steward (though there may be several) representing the system(s) that form a given subject area.
h. Data Map – the formal reference document that associates each Subject Area Domain with its Data Steward(s) and Trustee (i.e. business experts or “responsible parties”).
The University of Texas at Austin
Data Management Standards
5. Roles and Responsibilities
a. Data Trustees – VP and Associate VP administrators with portfolio level management
responsibilities over Subject Area Domain(s) and their System(s) of Record. Data Trustees are, generally, members of the Business Services Committee; a subset of Data Trustees will provide representation on the Data Management Committee.
b. Data Stewards (custodians) – the operational managers for Subject Area Domain data and Systems of Record. Data Stewards report to a Trustee, though, in some cases, the Steward may also be the Trustee. Data Stewards and their staff have deep knowledge of the System(s) of Record, definitions, processes, and business logic for their domain(s). Data Stewards assist with metadata, modeling, risks assessments, roles/access recommendations, and validation. A subset of Data Stewards will provide representation on the Data Management Committee. c. IQ Steering / Data Management Committee (DMC) – the primary governing body for Data
Access Governance. Previously called the “IQ Steering Committee,” membership will be revised and roles redefined to encompass a larger data access management role. The DMC will include representatives from Data Trustees, Stewards, colleges and schools, and executive
administrative offices and will report its decisions and policy recommendations through the Business Services Committee, the Operational IT Committee and, ultimately, SITAB. The DMC will be responsible for (a) refinements and addendums to these Standards; (b) development of formal Data Access Governance policies and procedures; (c) development and adoption of Roles/Access rules,; and (d) development of mechanisms for access and use requests to be submitted and considered by the committee. The DMC may form workgroups or task forces as needed to inform policy decisions or facilitate request/approval processes.
d. IQ Sponsors (a.k.a. “standards implementation committee”) – the existing operational oversight group for IQ will continue in its current role and also assume responsibility for implementation and coordination of the Data Access Governance structure, maintaining a website with current policies and contact information, facilitating DMC meetings and agendas, and communicating policies to campus constituents.
