Student Lifecycle Project
SMG Paper
17 March 2009
1.
Executive Summary
In June 2007, SMG considered the case for investing in a new student
information system. Over many years, continuous investment has been made
in developing the University's in-house student system to meet changing
needs. SMG concluded that this model of development was unsustainable. It
meant the University was critically reliant on the highly specific knowledge of
a small number of internal colleagues, and it involved Glasgow losing ground
to its Russell Group competitors, all but one of whom had now implemented a
third-party student system.
In recent months, a Project Board has managed a tender process, leading to
the selection of Oracle's 'Campus Solutions' as the preferred student
information system. The Board has then taken forward a process of due
diligence in order that, before making a contractual commitment to the
preferred supplier, the University should explore fully the supplier's approach
to implementation, thus gaining a high level of confidence about timescales
and resource requirements.
With the conclusion of the due diligence process, the Project Board now
recommends to SMG that the University implement Oracle's Campus
Solutions. The estimated full cost of implementation, including internal staff
commitments, is £13.2M. Part of this cost is capitalised, and its impact on the
revenue account is therefore spread over 8 years. With a maximum annual
revenue commitment of £2.5M (in 2011/12), the cost is affordable within the
University's current financial projections. If approved, implementation will
begin in May 2009, with full completion in September 2011.
This paper sets out the main areas in which the Student Lifecycle Project will
benefit the University. It will help us realise some of our key strategic
objectives, will deliver a marked improvement in the quality of service we
offer students and staff, and will achieve efficiencies in our operations,
allowing savings to be secured and staff time to be used more productively.
The paper also identifies some of the key requirements placed on University
managers. If we are to secure the greatest benefit from this initiative then,
across a range of academic policies and administrative processes, we must
have a consistent approach, driven by the need to offer students the best
quality of service and to make the most effective use of staff time. The paper
identifies the main policy areas in which changes will be required. In asking
members of SMG to approve the adoption of Campus Solutions, it seeks their
commitment to ensure that, where new University policies are approved, they
are implemented consistently and effectively.
1 of 24
2.
Background and Rationale
In 2007 an analysis of the University’s strategic objectives established the
priorities of senior staff in order to support delivery of strategic plans,
particularly
Recruitment,
Retention,
Student
Centric
Services
and
Management Information.
A business case was then developed for the investment required to transform
the processes which support learning and teaching, provide better
management information and improve the delivery of services to students
and staff.
The analysis and the business case made clear that to maintain the current
student information system and develop it at the present rate, will not provide
the extra features needed as the competition accelerate ahead by an ever
increasing margin. The conclusion reached was that the way forward is to
invest in a third party package solution to replace the core student records
system in conjunction with a major process improvement programme.
Having obtained approval for investment as set out in the Business Case (SMG
meeting 26.6.07 ‘Business Case for Review of Student Administrative
Processes’) the Student Lifecycle Project (SLP) was established and embarked
upon the procurement of a new student information system and associated
business transformation activity.
The basis of the initial assessment and justification for the investment has not
changed. The current position is unsustainable for the future and will not
adequately support the attainment of the University’s strategic objectives.
Having undertaken a comprehensive procurement process, using the EU
negotiated route (Competitive Dialogue), and completed a rigorous Due
Diligence phase, the Project Board is now in a position to recommend the
appointment of a supplier (Oracle) for the provision of a new student
information solution and the full implementation of the SLP.
The Student Lifecycle Project can deliver significant benefits and efficiencies,
and can make a direct contribution to the attainment of the targets set out in
the University’s Strategic Objectives. However, success in this is reliant upon
achieving the business transformation which is a key part of the overall
project.
The SMG has a pivotal role to play in leading change to ensure achievement
of the University’s aspirations. Strong leadership and commitment is required
to achieve greater levels of consistency and standardisation and achieve full
utilisation of the new corporate student records solution.
2 of 24
3.
Contribution to UoG Strategic Objectives and Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs)
In its 2006 – 2010 Strategic Plan the University set the following objectives:
Learning and Teaching: we aim to be renowned internationally for
enquiry-led learning in a knowledge culture that is shaped by the richness
and diversity of our research environment.
Research: to be in the top 50 research-oriented universities worldwide.
Finance: to develop and maintain a strong resource base.
Human Resources: to enable staff to excel in the achievement of
University objectives.
Infrastructure: to develop our facilities and infrastructure to support
academic excellence
These objectives are reflected in the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) by
which the University measures its progress and attainment. By improving
student recruitment success and facilitating a more productive use of staff
time, the Student Lifecycle Project will contribute to achieving the University's
objectives for Research, Finance and Human Resources. Its principal impact
will be in contributing to the achievement of the University's Learning &
Teaching objectives, in particular in the areas of: Student Recruitment;
Student Retention and Progression; and Student Satisfaction. The SLP will also
contribute to
1) Student Recruitment
The University aims to:
o Increase the proportion of PG students from 25%-33%
o Improve the quality of entrants (>420 UCAS pts)
o Increase the proportion of International students from 10% - 15%
o Increase ‘Widening Participation’ levels by 5%
SLP Contribution:
o SLP facilitates more targeted marketing of key audiences
o Portal provides an improved interface for prospects and applicants,
enabling easy access to information and communications
o Web-based nature of solution means it is available anytime, anywhere
and so can be used to support international recruitment in-country
and provide international applicants with the same level of service
and access to information as home students
o Centralised processing of applications improves response times and
communications with applicants
o An enhanced reputation generates greater interest in the University
3 of 24
o These improvements will also lead to an increase in the number of
applications for undergraduate studies, helping to achieve the
University’s target of 35k applications per annum.1
2) Student retention
The University aims to:
o improve1st – 2nd year progression rates, from 86% to 94%
o improve undergraduate completion rates, from 78% to 88%
SLP Contribution:
o Automated identification of ‘at risk’ students (and those potentially at
risk) based on characteristics, activity and events
o Automated prompts to advisers of ‘at risk’ students allows earlier
intervention
o Additional support can be automatically targeted to ‘at risk’ students
o Easier communications between departments/services improves
service & support to students
o Standardised approach and centralised data on attendance
recording & monitoring will enable analysis of trends and early
identification of problems
o Academic advisement rules provide comprehensive information about
course options and requirements through the self-service functionality,
aiding course selection
o Academic planner allows ‘what if’ scenario planning to aid course
selection & progression
o Automated triggers and workflows alert staff of students who may be
unable to progress (progress cases) in order to allow early intervention
o Improvements in the administration and timeline required to manage
the progress system and progress committees, giving students more
time to make representations
3) Student satisfaction
The University aims to improve the NSS satisfaction rating from 86% to 90%.
SLP Contribution:
Providing a better customer service by ensuring:
1 The University is committed to becoming a fully selecting University across all its degree programmes, and is
seeking to improve the 'tariff at entry' profile of its undergraduate student population. In order to promote
both of these objectives, it seeks to grow its applications to c. 35000 per annum and has invested in
enhanced recruitment and marketing activities (Ref: Education Policy & Strategy Committee, 17.12.08,
EC08/19)
.
4 of 24
o A more integrated approach to student support
o More quality engagement with students rather than administrative
processing
o Increased self-service functionality
o Improved access to information
o Greater consistency and transparency of processes and regulations
o Single source of information and single point of access
4.
Qualitative Benefits
In addition to the contribution to Strategic Objectives, the project will also
enable the realisation of a range of benefits, for example:
Improving the quality of management and planning through access to
better Management Information (MI)
o Single source of data – ‘single source of truth’ provides for more
consistent and accurate reporting
o ‘Management dashboard’ for production and distribution of reports
will provide prompt access to reports and enable the focus to be on
priority areas or measures (e.g. KPIs)
o Easy access to reports and queries for all users
o Less time spent collating and reconciling data for analysis
o Earlier availability of data to inform planning
Enhancing the staff experience through:
o Improved access to information
o Automation of routine administrative tasks
o Automated prompts and alerts where action is required (e.g. students
who are ‘at risk’ or ‘progress cases’)
o Consistent and standardised processes
o Single data source
o Single point of data entry
o Reduction/removal of redundant manual transactions
o Fewer routine administrative interactions with students, allowing time to
be spent on quality interactions
o Improvements in both the administration and timeliness of processes
such as managing the progress system and progress committees
Improving enquiry management through:
o Improved client interface and on-line marketing capabilities which will
enable the University to raise its profile and encourage enquiries
o More intelligent use of alumni data leading to an increase in enquiries
for CPD and other learning opportunities
o Automation of activities (include enquiry logging, responses and
communications) and creating more self-service provision, enabling
higher volumes of enquires to be captured and managed efficiently
o Logging of all enquiries to allow for better data analysis, more targeted
marketing and evaluation of marketing and communication initiatives.
5 of 24
Increasing conversion rates (Enquiry to Application; Application to Offer;
Offer to Acceptance; Acceptance to Registration) through:
o Enabling earlier engagement of applicants and nurturing of
relationships to increase conversions
o Allowing identification of and direct communication with targeted
groups of applicants
o Better and more comprehensive information (e.g. fee liability, financial
aid, accommodation, disability services) enables students to make
informed decisions
o Better service to applicants at all stages of the process
Improving financial stability by:
o Informing students of their fee liability at an early stage (i.e. for new
students, once offer is accepted)
o Providing a greater range of options for payment, including on-line
payments
o Enabling the collection of fee deposits at an early stage
o Identifying students in need of financial aid
o Ensuring a more co-ordinated and targeted approach to financial aid
o Improving debt management arrangements and support
5.
Efficiencies
Through the SLP and implementation of the Oracle solution the University will
be able to make more effective and efficient use of its resources. The
workshops conducted during the Due Diligence phase identified significant
business improvements which would deliver operational efficiencies. This has
the potential to achieve a real improvement in the University's productivity
through removing unnecessary duplication and reducing the time academic
and support staff require to devote to administrative tasks. The table below
provides examples of areas in which significant operational efficiencies can
be achieved.
Area
1.
Centralised PG application processing
2.
Centralised financial aid processing & management
3.
Automation of fee calculation, invoicing and debt management
together with on-line payments
4.
Automation of course selection and enrolment processes(reducing
the administrative burden on academic advisors)
5.
Single and consistent source of data for reporting
6.
Centralised and automated timetabling & room-booking processes
and automatic production of personalised timetables
7.
Streamlining of processes and access to information
(e.g. preparation for Departmental examination boards)
8.
All information held in single system so less time spent
copying/sending information to other departments/services (e.g.
details of completers to Registry)
9.
Redundancy of locally maintained systems
10. Centralised processing and management of short-course fees.
6 of 24
An early estimate has been made of the value of staff time that will be saved
in the above 10 areas, and the figure is in excess of £1M per annum. A more
robust estimate of the value of efficiency savings, together with the value of
the contribution of the solution to the realisation of strategic and operational
benefits, will be made once the process design phase of the Project is
complete.
6. Timeline and Process Design
Implementation of the Student Lifecycle Project is scheduled to commence in
May 2009 with a detailed design phase followed by a phased roll-out of the
system. The final elements of the solution are planned to go live in September
2011. This timeline, whilst challenging, is considered to be realistic and
achievable.
A high level implementation plan is included at Appendix 1 for information.
The first stage of the implementation plan will be Conference Room Pilots
(CRP1) 2 for all processes in the Student Lifecycle. These are due to
commence in June 2009.
For this stage the information gathered in the due diligence workshops to
design future processes will be used by the Oracle consultants to pre-build a
pilot system, using a small amount of University of Glasgow data, to
demonstrate the business processes and agree details required for the system
design and build to commence.
The due diligence phase has demonstrated that Campus Solutions has the
functionality required to meet the University's needs. It will be important in this
first stage of implementation to ensure that our processes are aligned closely
with the new system's functionality. We must avoid wherever possible the
need for Oracle to deliver special customisations for the University, a
requirement which would be expensive, both in terms of implementation
costs and longer term maintenance costs, and might involve delay.
The CRP1 workshops will involve staff from across the University who will be
able to take decisions on how detailed processes are designed and
delivered in the new system. Underlying this, a number of policy issues need to
be addressed and decisions made either before the workshops start in June
or by the time the design is finalised in September.
7. Policy Issues
In a number of instances the proposed future processes will require a change
in current policy.
2 CRPs (Conference Room Pilots) refer to the approach adopted by Oracle to ensure robust
design and testing of the new solution on an incremental basis. CRP1 produces the detailed
design for the solution; CRP2 allow a build of the UoG design and configuration to be reviewed
and tested; whilst CRP3 and 4 are the testing, training and deployment phases.
7 of 24
The key policy decisions involve:
1. admissions policies
2. the role of advisers in course approval
3. the process for allocating students to classes and class scheduling/
room allocations
4. the level at which course components should be recorded and results
published to students through the system
5. the harmonisation of progression rules and supplementary regulations
6. management of research students
7. Student Financial Aid and Scholarships management.
The following describes these broad issues in more detail:
1. The University already has centralised management of admissions for
the majority of faculties for UCAS students and PGT students. Several
departments operate their own additional processes for selection,
including interviewing candidates. The requirement for these non
standard processes will be reviewed, and they should be maintained
only where there is a demonstrable requirement for them. In the case
of PGR applications, it is proposed that the application and admissions
process should be administered centrally with decision making
remaining with individual departments as at present. The new system
also gives the University the opportunity to bring short course
admissions into line with the processes for other areas.
2. The functionality in Campus Solutions will enable the University to
streamline the process for registration and enrolment, with course
selection being much more automated than at present without the
need for adviser approval of all course choices. The intention is to
simplify the process to the benefit of students and advisers, and to
ensure the involvement of advisers in course selection is appropriately
targeted. Whilst the detail of how this would operate can be finalised
in the CRP1 the principles need to be agreed in advance and need to
be consistent across faculties.
3. The new system will enable students to access their individual
timetable of all lectures, classes, labs. This will require relevant data to
be recorded and maintained in the system and for agreement to be
reached to allow the allocation of students to classes and labs to be
automated wherever possible. CMIS (the system currently used by
Central Room Booking) will be used for scheduling and the
functionality of CMIS and the processes supporting it will be reviewed
in the light of the new requirements. As a minimum all teaching space
needs to be recorded and allocated through CMIS.
4. The level at which results for course components are recorded in the
system and published to students needs to be agreed and there needs
to be consistency of approach across courses.
8 of 24
5. A significant area for possible improvement is progression rules and
supplementary regulations which can currently vary considerably,
even within the same degree and department.
6. The extent to which there can be greater consistency in the
management of research students across Faculties needs to be
agreed.
7. There is a lack of a single focus for student financial aid and
scholarships in the University. Responsibility is currently dispersed across
a number of central services and faculties and there would be
efficiencies and service improvements to be gained from bringing
support for this area of activity together in one office, using the
functionality in Campus Solutions to underpin more consistent
processes.
A Process Champion (Project Board member) has been assigned
responsibility for ensuring the resolution of each of the policy issues. Appendix
2 sets out the full details of the key policy decisions which need to be
addressed before CRP1 commences (end May 2009) giving a description of
each issue; the decision required to progress the project, the University
Committee or Group with responsibility for that decision and the date by
which that decision is required. Given the timescale it may be desirable to
hold an additional meeting of each of the Committees/Groups involved
specifically to deal with these issues.
8. Oracle Partnership and Proposal
Oracle has agreed, as a result of both pressure from the University of Glasgow
and realisation of the potential for Campus Solutions in the UK market, to take
ownership of the UoG project and not rely on a third party implementation
partner. In addition Oracle has agreed to resource the project team with
experienced consultants from the US. Combined with a revised
implementation model which is based on the proven US methodology there is
now far greater belief that the proposed plan, timescales, costs and overal
scope is achievable.
The implementation methodology to be adopted is based on an iterative
design and build model as described below. Of critical importance is the
need to gain comprehensive coverage of requirements in the first design
iteration (CRP1). The second, third and fourth iterations are about refinement
and testing and should not be viewed as an invitation to continually question
and raise new requirements. Throughout all the iterations the system itself will
play an important role allowing workshop participants to view how the system
would support the various processes and the options that are available, as
against the traditional paper based model which relied on users being able
to visualise options and potential outcomes.
The commitment of Oracle to the University of Glasgow project, both in terms
of vision and internal commitment as well as the market opportunity it
9 of 24
presents, has been reinforced over recent months by senior managers within
the Oracle corporation.
A more detailed description of the proposed approach is included at
Appendix 3.
9. Project Governance
Clear and effective project governance is essential in major projects, such as
the SLP. This is well recognised by both Oracle and UoG. Accordingly, the first
activity (Structure phase) within the implementation plan is concerned with a
range of project initiation tasks and establishment of the project structure and
governance for the operation and delivery of the whole project. This
methodology will be fully documented and will define the following:
1. Vision and Objectives
2. Scope
3. Assumptions, Constraints, Risks, and impact of other Critical Path
Projects
4. Project Organisation
5. Project Standards and Administration
6. Quality Plan
7. External Communication Plan
8. Testing Plan
9. Organisation and Business Process Change Management Plan
10. Functional Configuration and Scope Change Management
11. Software Configuration Management Plan for Project
12. Technical Architecture Requirements
13. Project Team Communication Plan
14. Milestone Project Plan.
10 of 24
Investment Summary
The costs summarised below are based on the now agreed resource plan covering implementation, licenses and hardware. All
implementation effort is based on a time and materials basis.
Capitalise Licenses, Hardware, Software & Consultancy
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
Total
Student Lifecycle Project
Licenses
(230)
(495)
0
0
(725)
Hardware
(288)
(705)
0
0
(993)
Oracle Services Contract
(838)
(2,677)
(2,194)
(541)
(6,250)
Capital Costs
(1,356)
(3,877)
(2,194)
(541)
0
0
0
0
(7,968)
Hardware Maintenance
0
(35)
(106)
(135)
(135)
(135)
(135)
(135)
(817)
Software Maintenance
0
0
(161)
(161)
(161)
(161)
(161)
(161)
(965)
Oracle User Group
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(281)
Back-Fill Costs
(339)
(1,416)
(1,191)
(190)
(3,136)
Revenue Costs
(373)
(1,487)
(1,493)
(521)
(331)
(331)
(331)
(331)
(5,199)
Total Cashflow
(1,729)
(5,364)
(3,687)
(1,062)
(331)
(331)
(331)
(331)
(13,167)
Revenue - Cashflow
(373)
(1,487)
(1,493)
(521)
(331)
(331)
(331)
(331)
(5,199)
Revenue - Depreciation
(1,992)
(1,992)
(1,992)
(1,992)
(7,968)
Total Revenue
(373)
(1,487)
(1,493)
(2,513)
(2,323)
(2,323)
(2,323)
(331)
(13,167)
1. All values include VAT where appropriate
2. Oracle Services costs include other third party costs such as NCC
3. Model assumes Services / Consultancy costs are capitalised
4. No contingency has been included
11 of 24
Appendix 1: Project Timeline
12 of 24
Appendix 2 Issues
Academic Structures (Process Champion – Professor Andrea Nolan)
Ref.
Policy Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-AS-006
Issue: In the general faculties, although students are admitted against a specific UCAS course Vice Principal for Learning
End May 2009
code, they do not need to make a decision on their intended honours subject until their third and Teaching and
year. Until this time, the subject for which they were admitted (UCAS course code) shows as the Internationalisation(advised
student’s subject even though this may mean that they will be recorded against a subject that is by Learning and Teaching
not related to the courses actually being studied.
Ctte)
Recommendation: For all students intended honours subject should be captured and recorded
at the point of registration in each year of study. (This does not undermine the principle that a
firm decision as to which honours subject will be followed will not be made until after the end of
year 2.)
I-AS-008
Issue: A formal title to encompass DACE and CPD provision is required.
Deans Group
End May 2009
Recommendation: The title Life Long Learning to be applied.
I-AS-009
Issue: Feedback indicates that there are concerns over the potential for confusion between EdPSC (advised by
End May 2009
fundamental elements of terminology used by both UoG and Campus Solutions (CS) e.g. Advisory Group established
definition of UoG Programme versus a CS Plan as well as UoG Session versus a CS Term. Some by Vice Principal for
terminology which is UK specific rather than simply UoG specific may be delivered by Oracle as a Learning and Teaching
UK localisation.
and Internationalisation)
Recommendation: Principle should be to keep re-naming to a minimum.
Student Records Maintenance (Process Champion – Professor Andrea Nolan)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-SR-002
Issue: Standard functionality in Campus Solutions enables student requests to change courses to EdPSC (advised by Clerk
End May 2009
be immediately processed, in accordance with agreed rules in the system’s enrolment engine, of Senate and Vice
and advisers notified via the system.
Principal for Learning and
Recommendation: Remove the stage of adviser approval before course changes can be Teaching and
effected, with appropriate safeguards to check the new course is a viable option for the student.
Internationalisation)
13 of 24
I-SR-004
Issue: Registry currently has the responsibility for confirming and processing student withdrawals Student Support and
End May 2009
but it is thought to be more appropriate that this resides with the adviser who is likely to be the Development Ctte
person to have final contact with a student and the opportunity to counsel the student before (advised by Chief Advisers
the withdrawal is processed.
Sub – Ctte)
Recommendation: Determine a standard policy for managing withdrawals taking account of the
needs of the student.
I-SR-
Issue: UoG’s attendance monitoring policy needs to be approved before detailed configuration EdPSC ( advised by
End May 2009
005/007
of attendance process on CS can take place. This is currently under discussion.
Learning and Teaching
Recommendation: Consistent policy across faculties to be agreed for UG, PGT and PGR students. Committee’s Attendance
Monitoring WG)
I-SR-009
Issue: Internal processes for faculty/programme changes vary considerably across faculties.
Vice Principal for Learning End May 2009
Recommendation: Agree a common policy across all Faculties.
and Teaching and
Internationalisation
(advised by Chief Advisers
Sub – Ctte)
I-SR-011
Issue: A prescribed ‘add / drop’ period for students to make course changes should be Academic Standards
End May 2009
considered as part of a more automated process for course approval.
Committee ASC)
Recommendation: A published deadline date for course changes should be set.
Course and Programme Management (Process Champion – Professor Andrea Nolan)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-CP-001
Issue: The further development of generic degree regulations and harmonisation of Academic Standards
End May 2009
supplementary regulations will enable the University to simplify the advisement rules to be created Committee (ASC)
and maintained in the system.
Recommendation: A Working Group of Academic Standards Committee to review and agree
plan to achieve this.
I-CP-005
Issue: DACE non-accredited and low credit courses and short courses will be held in the system Clerk of Senate (advised
End May 2009
and the current course approval process for these needs to be investigated against proposed by Head of DACE)
design to determine whether special requirements will continue to be required.
Recommendation: To be reviewed and future process agreed
14 of 24
I-CP-016
Issue: New course coding structure to be developed which will enable accurate searching by Clerk of Senate (advised
End May 2009
SCQF level, given that CS does not record ‘level’ as a standard searchable attribute and be more by Chair of ASC, Senate
user orientated.
Office, Registry and MIS)
Recommendation: Review course code structure to develop a logical coding scheme that will fit
the Campus Solutions field requirements and which will enable degree regulations to be adhered
to. Recoding should take account of best practice to develop a structure which is robust in the
long term (e.g. evaluating any risks associated with embedding the ‘level’ within the course code)
Admissions (Process Champion – David Newall)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-UG-001
Issue: The University already has centralised management of admissions for the majority of
Vice Principal for Learning
End May 2009
faculties for UCAS students and PGT students, although a number of departments operate their
and Teaching and
own processes for selection, including interviewing candidates and whether all of these non
Internationalisation
standard processes need to continue should be reviewed.
(advised by Secretary of
Recommendation: Agreement that standard agreed processes for admissions and selection Court and Deans)
should be adopted as far as possible and the need for any variations should be justified.
I-UG-017 Issue: UG admissions policy needs to be developed in line with goal to be a selecting university
Vice Principal for Learning
End Sept 2009
including moving to a gathered field of all applicants before making decisions; the role academic and Teaching and
expertise/ vs professional admissions staff in reviewing personal statements; transparency in using
Internationalisation
additional tests and how to make decisions between competing students who have achieved
(advised by Secretary of
over the minimum tariff in “general” faculties.
Court and Deans)
Recommendation: Policy to be agreed.
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-PG-003
Issue: .There is currently no central involvement in the PGR application and admissions process
RPSC (advised by
End May 2009
and there would be efficiencies which would benefit applicants and staff in administering the
Secretary of Court)
process from a central admissions office.
Recommendation: The application and admissions process for PGRs should be administered
centrally with decision making remaining with individual departments as at present.
15 of 24
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-SC-004
Issue: There is no support for CPD short course administration within the current system. The new
Secretary of Court
End May 2009
system gives the opportunity to bring short course admissions into line with the processes for other
(advised by Deans)
areas.
Recommendation: Agree that wherever possible short course/CPD/DACE applications should be
processed using the same standard processes as for other programmes. This will enable the new
system to be used for all programmes.
Registration and Enrolment (Process Champion – Dr Carol Clugston)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-RE-004/
Issue: The new system will enable students to access their individual timetable of all lectures,
Secretary of Court and
End May 2009
CP011
classes, labs. This will require relevant data to be recorded and maintained in the system and for
Director of Estates and
agreement to be reached to allow the allocation of students to classes and labs to be
Buildings
automated wherever possible. CMIS (the system currently used by Central Room Booking) will be
used for scheduling. SMG has already agreed that the allocation of all teaching space should
be done using the CMIS system so that comprehensive timetables can be delivered to students
through Campus Solutions.
Recommendation: Plan to incorporate all teaching space into CMIS in accordance with the
timescales for implementation of Campus Solutions needs to be progressed and the functionality
of CMIS and the processes supporting it need to be reviewed in line with the overall process.
I-RE-006
Issue: The functionality in Campus Solutions will enable the University to streamline the process for
Clerk of Senate (advised
End May 2009
registration and enrolment, with course selection being much more automated than at present
by the Chief Advisers
without the need for adviser approval of all course choices. The intention is to simplify the
Group and Deans)
process to the benefit of students and advisers, and to ensure the involvement of advisers in
course selection is appropriately targeted. Whilst the detail of how this would operate can be
finalised in the CRP1 the principles need to be agreed in advance and need to be consistent
across faculties.
Recommendation: The role of the adviser in course approval and the ‘Faculty Approval’ process
to be changed to take account of the new functionality available.
16 of 24
Progression (Process Champion – Professor Paul Hagan)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-PR-
Issue: Progression rules are set at departmental level in accordance with published degree Deans of Faculties
End May 2009
003/004
regulations There are differences in progression rules / requirements between faculties/ depts.
even for the same degrees. This causes lack of clarity for students and will complicate the
configuration of automated processing. The University may wish to review the need for increased
standardisation.
Recommendation: Each Faculty should review progression rules for all its honours programmes to
ensure that there is consistency and transparency between them from a student perspective,
that they can be configured to enable automated processing and that rules are harmonised
where possible.
Assessment (Process Champion – Professor Paul Hagan)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
IS-A-003
Issue: it will be possible to record assessment results at a more detailed level in CS than is currently EdPSC (advised by
End May 2009
possible and a policy is needed on level at which grades should be recorded in CS and/or ASC/Code of Assessment
published to students.
WG)
Recommendation: Policy to be devised.
IS-A-011
Issue: The new system will enable reports to be developed for use during exam boards . Standard EdPSC (advised by Code
End May 2009
content for these will need to be developed. (Reporting tools can be used to enable of Assessment Working
departments to produce supplementary information.)
Group)
Recommendation: Agree standard content for exam board papers/on screen displays.
.
17 of 24
Exam Management (Process Champion – Christine Lowther)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-EM-
Issue; At present there is a 2 stage approval process for all special examination arrangements Clerk of Senate (advised
End May 2009
011/012
made for students with disabilities. There is also a wide variation in the provisions made eg by the Student Disability
amount of additional time in exams which leads to a great deal of complexity for departments Service, Registry and
in setting up of special arrangements.
departmental Disabilty Co-
Recommendation: Review whether the ‘double’ approval arrangement (SDS and Clerk of ordinators)
Senate) should continue and review arrangements for students with special examination
requirements to ensure there is not an unnecessary proliferation of different provisions. Develop a
standardised coding system to describe special arrangements. In the light of the outcome of
review to agree the split of responsibilities between departments and Registry for implementing
arrangements.
Graduations (Process Champion – Christine Lowther)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-GR-002
Issue: Students on final year taught courses who have outstanding assessments carried into a EdPSC (advised by Head
End May 2009
new session are not currently required to register and this means that there is not a live record in of Registry)
the system to record results/ graduation record and report against.
Recommendation: All students should continue to be registered until they have completed their
course of study and all assessments unless they are deemed to have withdrawn. Consider
whether this requires development of withdrawal policy. Details of any fees due to be
determined.
18 of 24
Research (Process Champion – Dr Carol Clugston)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-RS-006
Issue: At present it is optional for research students who have completed their required period of full RPSC
End May 2009
time registration to register during their “writing up” period. This makes it difficult to use central
records to track students and report accurately on the number of students in this category.
Recommendation: All research students to continue to register until their research is completed and
their thesis has been examined.
I-RS-
Issue: Processes for managing research students vary considerably across faculties.
RPSC (advised by Heads
End May 2009
001/003/
Recommendation: The extent to which any processes can be standardised should be explored.
of Graduate Schools
004/010/
Group)
012
Reporting (Process Champion – Professor Neal Juster)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-RP-001
Issue; The fact that the University does not have a comprehensive reporting strategy was Vice Principal for Strategy
End May 2009
highlighted in considering how reporting tools and business intelligence system would be
and Resources (advised by
deployed.
Working Group)
Recommendation: Overall reporting strategy to be agreed.
Student Profile (Process Champion – Christine Lowther)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-SP-002
Issue: Date of birth is not currently compulsory for DACE students. If this remains the case once all Dean of Faculty of
End May 2009
data held in single database there would be inconsistencies in records and incomplete data.
Education
Recommendation: Date of birth data should in future be collected for all students, including
DACE.
19 of 24
Student Financials (Process Champion – Robert Fraser)
Ref.
Issue Requiring Decision
Responsibility
Due Date
I-FA-
Issue: There is a lack of a single focus for student financial aid and scholarships in the University.
Secretary of Court and
End May 2009
009/001/
Responsibility is currently dispersed across a number of central services and faculties and there
Deans ( advised by
I-RS-008
would be efficiencies and service improvements to be gained from bringing support for this area
Central Heads of Service
of activity together in one office, using the functionality in Campus Solutions to underpin more
and Faculty Secretaries.)
consistent processes.
Recommendation: A standard process for the management of scholarships and other awards
should be agreed and the benefits and practicalities of having a centralised ‘financial aid’ office
should be explored. These could include the ability to streamline the management, receipt,
processing and tracking of hardship and scholarship awards and monitoring overall provision to
ensure it is supporting strategic objectives.
I-SF-005.
Issue: Although minimum levels of fees are set for Postgraduate Taught and Distance Learning Vice Principal for Strategy
End May 2009
courses actual fees charged are determined by departments and there are variations which (advised by Deans and
would seem to unnecessarily complicate the fee structure. There is also variation between whether Director of Finance)
all costs are included in the published tuition fee or whether additional charges are levied locally
for field courses etc.
Recommendation: A fee matrix should be developed decreasing the range of fees charged whilst
ensuring that departments retain the ability to determine the appropriate market rate for their
programme.
20 of 24
Appendix 3
Oracle Approach
Section 9 of this paper describes the overall Oracle implementation
approach and refers to specific elements of this. These elements are
described in more detail in this appendix.
Conference Room Pilots
Conference Room Pilot 1 (CRP1)
1. A detailed review of all processes in scope concurrently
2. System is prototyped using delivered test data
3. Will identify gaps and propose resolution prior to build of the system
4. Progress to CRP2 requires system design sign-off from CRP1
Conference Room Pilot 2 (CRP2 Construct)
1. Completed system configuration
2. Unit-tested business processes
3. Completed build of technical components (reports, interfaces etc.)
4. Progress to CRP3 requires system build sign-off from CRP2
Conference Room Pilot 3 (CRP3 Transition)
1. Integrated beginning-to-end testing of all processes
2. Completed test scripts for each tested business process;
3. Completed system ready for go-live
4. End-user training
5. Progress to CRP4 requires system acceptance from CRP3
Conference Room Pilot 4 (CRP4 Deploy)
1. Validation of final go-live execution;
2. Final data conversion from legacy systems
3. Transition to live;
4. Progress to Live requires user acceptance from CRP4
Core Functionality
A summary of the key processes to be covered in the project is provided in
the table 2 below with the majority of functionality delivered by the software
modules identified in table 1 below.
Table 1: Oracle Modules
Campus Solutions
Enterprise Campus Solutions, which includes:
Student Administration (Student Records, Recruiting &
Admissions, Academic Advisement, Financial Aid, Student
Financial Services, Academic Structure and Campus
Community),
Gradebook and
Campus Self-Service
Campus Portal
Enterprise Portal
21 of 24
CRM
Student Lifecycle Marketing (CRM Marketing, and Online
Marketing), and
Sales, Support and Multi-channel communications
Contributor Relations
Contributor Relations
Reporting
Campus Solutions Warehouse and Business Intelligence
Enterprise Edition & Interactive Dashboards, BI Publisher,
nVision, Query, and Crystal
End User Training Tools
User Productivity Kit: Developer and Content
Business Process and Conversions
The following Business Processes and Conversions have been identified as
requirements during the Due Diligence Phase and will form the basis for
Conference Room Pilot 1 in the Structure Phase.
Table 2: Business Processes & Conversions
Campus Community /
• Conversion of Campus Community relevant data
Conversion
(e.g. Person records, external organisations, etc.)
• Enablement of relevant Campus Community
features
• Interface from Accommodation system
Academic Structure
• Configuration of Academic Structure (including
Academic Organisations and the Academic
Organisation Tree)
• Conversion of the Academic Structure
UCAS Processing
• Previous UCAS applications Conversion into Data
Warehouse
• UCAS and GTTR admissions processing
• 3Cs for UCAS (Communications, Checklists, and
Comments engine)
Admission
• On-line and paper based applications
Applications (P/T
• Interviewing solution
Undergraduate &
• Determine evaluation process
Postgraduate) &
• 3Cs for admissions (Communications, Checklists, and
Application
Comments engine)
Evaluation and
• Recording of applicants
Acceptance
acceptance/rejection/deferral
• Research, Visiting Undergraduate, Postgraduate
Taught and Part-time Undergraduate admissions
• Previous non-UCAS/GTTR applications Conversion
into Data Warehouse
Student Finance Post
• Cashiering
Deposit Fees /
• On-line payments
Payments / Invoices /
• Invoice generation
General Ledger
• General Ledger Interface
Interface
• 3Cs for Finance (Communications, Checklists, and
Comments engine)
• Application Fees
• Enrolment deposits
Financial Aid
• Financial Aid On-line application
Awarding
• Financial Aid budgeting
• Determining an individual award amount
22 of 24
Financial Aid
• Transferral of funds to the student
Disbursement
• BACS payment file interface
Student Records
• Processes for program and course approvals
Course Catalog
• Course Catalog conversion (including the build of
historical class schedules)
• PIP course information file interface
Academic
• Configuration of progression regulations
Advisement Build
• Student progress tracking and reporting
Components
• Honours progression
• Enrolment conversion – current students only
(conversion of history of enrolments to be owned
and actioned by UoG in a time to suit the Universities
schedule)
Student Records Class
• Class timetabling for CMIS interface
Schedule / Term
• Allocation of staff to classes
Activation
• CMIS interface
• Term Activation
Student Records
• Registration
Enrolment /
• Enrolment
Placements via
• Placement
Classes
• Accreditation of prior learning
Student Records
• Marking of Assessments (including grade & final
Grading/Grade book
award calculation)
• Submission of Assessments
• Exam management (including exam scheduling)
• External Examiner Interface
• Academic Appeals
• Appointments of External Examiners
• Attendance tracking (including early warning & at
risk identifiers)
• Absence Recording
Student Financials
• All remaining Financials functionality as appropriate
Tuition Calc /
(the last financials go-live) – including Fee set-up
Payments / Invoices /
and calculation and Ad-hoc charge and credit
Posting /
posting
Accommodations /
• Sponsorships and payment plans
Collections
• Accommodation Interface
• Account Balances Conversion
• Direct Debits
Academic Advising
• “What If” processing dependent on subject
Program Projection
ownership decision
Advising
Academic
• Allocation of Advisors
Advisement Student
• Academic Advising
Advising
Short Course
• Financial Aid processing for Short Course
applications &
• 3 Cs (Communications, Checklists, and Comments
enrolment
engine)
• Assessment
• Academic Advisement for Short Courses
• Development of a Short Course Admission,
Registration and Enrolment process
• Full Financials functionality for Short Course
23 of 24
Student Admin
• Integration between PeopleSoft Campus Solutions
Integration Pack
and Moodle
Functionality
HESA Student
• Derivation and file extraction for HESA Student
(Reporting and Early
Return
Validation) / Actual
• DLHE
Return Preparation
• Scottish Funding Council return
CRM On-line
• Marketing of overseas prospective students
Marketing overseas
pilot / Support Desk
CRM Recruiting
• Marketing of undergraduate and post-graduate
(Postgraduate
prospective students
2011/12
• Applicant Enquiries
Undergraduate
2012/13)
CRM Alumni
• Target donors, students and external organizations
• Constituent surveys
Contributor Relations
• Campaign design
• Volunteer management
• Membership Services management
• Pledge management
• Gift Processing
• GL Interface
• Alumni related KPIs
Enterprise Portal
• Initial portal design and deploy
• Single sign-on
Reporting (BI)
• Development of ETLs required for Financials and HR
Marketing, Sales,
• Initial report development for non-student related
Financials & Human
KPIs
Resources
Reporting (BI) Student
• Student Support Service processes
Records / CRM At Risk
• Retention Reporting
Students
• Student related KPIs
24 of 24