Administrative Information Systems Project Progression Policy

---

---

Administrative Information Systems Project Progression Policy

Introduction and Purpose:

Background:

Prior to the reorganization of the IT committee structure, initiative proposals for IT enhancements (Banner functionality or purchase of software packages) were proposed and prioritized through the MTL group and the Administrative Information Steering Committee, before being prioritized through the ITC and Administration and Finance initiative proposal and prioritization process. The prioritized list of Administration and Finance initiatives were then referred to UPBAC in Bozeman for relevant approval and funding.

After the change in reporting lines and the reorganization of the IT committee structure, the approval/prioritization hierarchy no longer exists.

Project Progression Path

This proposal recognized the need for early consultation with the CIOs on the 4 campuses, on both technical and cultural implications of any initiative.

It is suggested that the initial stages of initiative proposal and consultation remain the same as the previous model, which is, discussions should be initiated and explored through the MTL group, including consultation with the various user groups through the MTLs and consultation with the CIOs on the four campuses.

Campuses, other than Bozeman, are supported in their approach to have campus discussions on any proposals that they wish to submit, prior to the proposal being presented to the MTL group. In this way, campus specific issues, such as funding, can be resolved proactively.

It is in these early technical discussions where Banner baseline changes are discussed and referred to the CISM for approval.

When any initiative, baseline Banner or new software product, is to be discussed at the MTL meeting, CIOs will be invited to participate in the MTL meeting.

There are three main types of proposals that should go through this consultation, approval and prioritization process:

• Banner baseline modifications,
• Single Instance proposal or smaller proposal, Parking Management software for a single campus,
  or
• Enterprise wide proposals or major proposals such as Web Payment.

---

Policy:

Banner Baseline Modifications

A Banner baseline modification is where a business unit wishes to change the basic programming of Banner to change the format, appearance, processing or functionality of Banner.

The positive implications are improved client interface or functionality (including processing). The negative implications relate to data integrity and the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the customization. With the increasing complexity of the Banner database the risk of undermining the data integrity by programming data directly into the Banner tables increases and is a significant concern.

The document submitted for a Banner modification proposals should include:

1. Proposal overview
2. Name and description of proposal
3. Proposed Project Manager/contact person
4. Evidence of formal test plan and evidence of satisfactory test results. These test results need to satisfy ITC-ASG that there is a low or mitigated risk associated with implementing the Banner modification.
5. Estimate cost of resources including:
   • Hardware
   • Licenses
   • Resources
   • Ongoing costs:
     • Contractual maintenance, and
     • ITC Administrative Services Group (ASG) and Network Services O maintenance.
6. Security implications,
7. Positive impact on organization,
8. Contingency issues that would need to be addresses
9. Preferred timeframe
10. Source of funds, if required.

In the case of minor modifications many of these issues may not be applicable. However, it is important that the questions are asked, and answered so that a fully informed decision is made.

These proposals are then presented to the Central Information Management Systems Committee to consult on a higher strategic level across the broad campus community.

After due consultation:

1. Banner baseline changes are approved by the CISM, and advised to the ETAC (see attachment 1).
2. Other initiatives are evaluated and referred, where complete and appropriate, to the ETAC.

Other Initiative Proposals (see attachment 2)

As noted above other initiative proposals would include:

• Single Instance proposal or smaller proposal, Parking Management software for a single campus,
  or
• Enterprise wide proposals or major proposals such as Web Payment.

The document submitted for either of these types of proposals should include:

1. Proposal overview
2. Name and description of proposal
3. Proposed Project Manager/contact person
4. Estimate cost of resources including:
   • Hardware
   • Licenses
   • Resources
   • Ongoing costs:
     • Contractual maintenance, and
     • TC Administrative Services Group (ASG) and Network Services O maintenance.
5. Positive impact on organization,
6. Contingency issues that would need to be addresses
7. Preferred timeframe
8. Source of Funds
   • Single instance proposals should include a funding source other than the ITGC/UPBAC funding avenue
   • Enterprise wide proposals should include funding options which can include the ITGC/UPBAC avenue. Four campus proposals should have funding allocations and sources agreed to prior to ETAC consideration.

If MSU already owns a piece of Banner functionality, and the proposal is for an alternate product, the submission will need to include a rationale as to why the alternate is the preferred solution.

Any proposal needs to include the anticipated dependence on ITC-ASG and associated costs which will need to be included in any cost of proposal.

ETAC will then consider the merits and priority of each of the proposed initiatives. Approved funded proposals will be delegated/allocated to the initiating department’s or campus’ project manager for implementation.

Unfunded approved proposals on the Bozeman campus will be referred to the IT Governance Committee, which will

• support at UPBAC,
• negotiate resolution at the Executive level, or
• refer back to the appropriate committee for further investigation, referral at a later, more appropriate date, or other decision.

Unfunded proposals from Great Falls, Northern or Billings campuses will be referred back to the campus CIO/CTO.

ETAC Prioritization Criteria

ETAC has the responsibility to approve and prioritize all proposals to manage the work demands on ITC ASG and, in part, ITC NSO.

Prioritization Criteria

• Is the proposal in support of a mandate from the legislature, Board of Regents or Office of the Commissioner for Higher Education?
• Organizational Impact
  • What are the benefits to the organization?
  • What are the potential cost savings?
  • Does the proposal meet one or more of the organizational strategic goals?
  • Does the proposal improve the efficiency of one or more Divisions?
• Does the proposal benefit the 4 campus enterprise or a single institution?
• Does the proposal have a detrimental impact on organizational security that would require customization by ITC-ASG?
• Does the proposal implement currently unused Banner functionality?
• Is the proposal for a product that integrates with Banner, or is extensive customization by ITC ASG required?
• Is it a stand-alone product, that is, no integration or dependency on Banner?
• If it is a stand-alone product, how will the product be maintained, is there an expectation that ITC will support the product or will the relevant department provide system admin support resources?
• Is there funding for the purchase and maintenance of the product or is a request for funding part of the proposal?

It is also suggested that this approach could be used as the approval process for the other 3 committees that report to the ETAC.