Attendance: Kelley Conrad (Team Leader), Patti D’Avignon, Stacey DeBrot, Beda Dubois, Peggy Jacobks, Joan Jolman, Terri Jourden, Kathy Krentz, Darlene Peklar, Mary Smith, Patricia Werly

Absent: Brenda Mitcheltree    

 

Kelley welcomed Perry Goodwyn, Datatel Systems Consultant (Project Plan and Timeline), joining the meeting via speakerphone; providing advice and guidance as we discuss issues and work to finish the CORE “Person” and “Organization” demographic data spreadsheets.

 

1. Minutes: The minutes of the February 17 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting.

 

2. DeltaCollege Visit:  

 

Tuesday, February 28. CORE Team members attending: Kelley Conrad, Patti D’Avignon, Stacey DeBrot, Joan Jolman, Terri Jourden, Kathy Krentz, Darlene Peklar, Mary Smith. Those members not attending should get any questions or concerns they have to one of these people.

 

Beda noted that the Financial Services team already had conference calls with both Delta and Macomb. She stressed the importance of benchmarking with more than one institution. Both colleges were very helpful, but certain processes varied so a decision appropriate to MCC was easier to make.

 

3. Benchmarking: 

 

As discussed at the last meeting, Kelley has developed a survey to facilitate consistent benchmarking with the 13 Michigan Community Colleges that use Datatel. Each member will be assigned one or two colleges to contact, and Kelley wondered if these could be completed by our meeting next Friday.  Brenda and Peggy will be gone and Patti has other job commitments next week, so Kathy and Beda offered to cover their colleges. Members will try to complete this task by March 3, when the results will be forwarded to Kelley. She hopes to compile the data and present the results on March 10. Questions include identifying person/office responsibility, documentation requirements, and business processes regarding name changes and address changes. Kelley will get the survey information to team members as soon as possible.

 

After the discussion last week on revisiting our hierarchy structure, Kelley prepared an updated example for MCC. This was distributed to everyone and faxed to Perry for review. Please check with your areas and get any changes or suggestions to Kelley.   She would like to finalize the hierarchy recommendation at our March 10 CORE meeting.

Kelley said she would go through the spreadsheets and identify any areas not completed or in question, and ask Perry for direction. After review, remaining unfinished items include:

 

 

The roleelement (on Organization Principal Contact Detail) was discussed at length. Perry will check on the use and standard practice of this item. Carol Hogan had noted that this field has “special processing” and must “match” other system data fields.  Beda questioned the difference between role and contact. Other role options suggested were “School Principal” and “Trustee”. After more discussion, members agreed that a person’s role would not change between modules (i.e.: President, Vice President, School Principal, etc.). However, a principal contact could be different between applications (i.e.: a purchasing agent for Financial Services; school counselor for the Counseling Office, etc.). It was also the consensus that a short concise list of roles would be most beneficial, eliminating possible inconsistencies when entering data throughout the database.

 

Beda noted that name and address changes and the criteria used are critical and may be specific to each module.   This process can affect many offices and a definitive, shared process is vital. Perry said some institutions have one “address change desk” for any address type or reason. The reliability of using return mail information for an address change was questioned. It was decided to carefully and comprehensively benchmark this issue.

 

Beda told Perry that Financial Services has been entering General Ledger data into the “Test” system, and additional purchasing consulting is scheduled for next week. She wondered if there’s a problem with entering information in the “Test” system before CORE elements have been decided and implemented. Perry didn’t think it would be a problem, and generally, specific application items won’t be affected by CORE. Patti and Kathy thought that we had asked Carol for a general timeline for CORE decisions, and she said early to mid March would be an appropriate target date. Kelley will check with Carol on a tentative timeline. Perry reiterated that any application-specific “bulk” type data can be entered now (i.e.: vendors), and any tracking issues can be figured out later.

 

Kelley asked whether OIT can begin setting up any CORE data decisions that have been approved so far. Perry felt this would be fine and actually beneficial to begin soon. Kelley will take the completed CORE demographic data element recommendations through the proper approval process and then meet with Joan and Pat regarding approved items.

 

Ø      Get any questions for Delta College to any personnel attending before next Tuesday.

 

Ø      Kelley will ask Carol Hogan for a tentative timeline.

 

Ø      Beda asked that Patti send the updated spreadsheets to all members.

 

Ø      Have benchmarking survey results done and submitted to Kelley prior to (or at) next Friday’s meeting (3/3).

 

Ø      Kelley will check on the CORE Remote Consulting session listed on the FIT Master Calendar for Monday, March 13. She thinks it was changed and our next consulting is Friday, April 14.