SCT Process Improvement Assessment

A Blueprint for Productivity Improvement

Université de Moncton

March 2004 Confidential Business Information

This documentation is proprietary information of SCT and is not to be copied, reproduced, lent or disposed of, nor used for any purpose other than that for which it is specifically provided without the written permission of SCT.

Prepared By: SunGard SCT Education Practices 4 Country View Road Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355 United States of America

Issued: March 2004

In preparing and providing this publication, SCT is not rendering legal, accounting, or other similar professional services. SCT makes no claims that an institution’s use of this publication or the software for which it is provided will insure compliance with applicable federal or state laws, rules, or regulations. Each organization should seek legal, accounting and other similar professional services from competent providers of the organization’s own choosing.

SunGard, the SunGard logo, SCT, the SCT logo, and Banner, Campus Pipeline, Luminis, PowerCAMPUS, SCT Matrix, SCT Plus, SCT OnSite and SCT PocketRecruiter are trademarks or registered trademarks of SunGard Data Systems Inc. or its subsidiaries in the U.S. and other countries. All other trade names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Table of Contents

Topic Page Executive Summary 4 Overview and Background 6 Assessment Findings 8 Training and Documentation 9 General Person 10 Recruiting 11 Admissions 12 General Student 14 Catalog 15 Schedule of Classes 16 Registration 17 Faculty Load 19 Housing 20 End of Term Processing/Academic History 21 Accounts Receivable 23 CAPP 25 Reporting 26 Technical Support 27 Miscellaneous 28 Appendix A- Interview Schedule 29

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 3 Executive Summary

Purpose of this The purpose of this document is to serve as a resource for the management and document staff of the Université de Moncton (UdeM) to evaluate and assess recommendations for improvements in current business practices and management reporting within the various student support offices on campus. This document contains general observations, problem identification, and specific recommendations on ways to enhance the use of the SCT Banner Student software.

Background Mr. Don Thibault, a Principal Functional Consultant for SunGard SCT’s Student system completed the SCT Process Improvement Assessment during the month of March 2004. Members of the Université’s student related offices as well as the members of the Information Technology staff who support the student information system answered questions surrounding the processes related to the utilization of the Banner Student system. The SCT consultant spent four days at the main campus in Moncton interviewing staff members from each office, clarifying issues, assessing training needs, and completing the assessment. Staff members from the Edmundston and Shippagan campuses participated in the sessions via teleconference.

All student process areas were reviewed as part of this assessment including: recruiting, admissions, catalog production, scheduling classes, registering students, end of term processing, maintenance of academic records, program completion auditing, and student assessment. Additionally, sessions included representation from the Information Technology support staff to measure the effectiveness of that group in providing support to the administrative and other end users of the system.

Findings Beyond the issues and recommendations addressed in the report it was found that the Banner forms and processes are used correctly within the parameters and business objectives of the Université. However, the workflows and processes surrounding the use of Banner are not optimally efficient and in some cases do not fully use industry best practices.

Continued on the next page

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 4 Executive Summary, Continued

Recommen- Specific recommendations will be listed within the body of this report. The dations Université de Moncton should continuously review its processes and its Banner Student System setup in relation to the system functionality and report processes delivered and integrated within the Student modules. As rule and validation table values may change to implement university policy changes, internal office procedures should continuously be monitored to incorporate these changes, particularly in those instances where improvements to services offered can be made. Office workflows need to be monitored as well and evaluated as enhancements to the system are delivered with future releases and as industry standards evolve

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 5 Overview and Background

Implementation UdeM implemented the Banner Student system in the Fall of 1999. The history primary motivating factor in the decision to purchase the suite of Banner products was the inability of the legacy system to comply with Y2K processing. The Université purchased, and has also implemented the Banner Human Resources, Finance and Advancement modules, as well as the corresponding Self-Service products.

Two significant factors contributed to the complexities of the implantations. The first was the need for Banner to serve a French language institution. At the time of implementation, there were minimal translation services available to UdeM to assist with producing an acceptable French Canadian version of the product. The institution used the talents of internal staff members to meet this need, and was recognized for their outstanding efforts by showcasing the talent of those involved and tools developed at the annual SCT Banner User Conference. Currently, all data entry is performed in French (Canadian standards) as well as most Banner form labels having been translated to French. On-line as well as system help is still only available in English.

The second factor was the need to accommodate three individual campuses (Edmundston, Shippagan and Moncton) within the one shared and integrated database while meeting the reporting and other data segregation needs of each campus.

During implementation, a project team was developed with representation from each of the campuses, and centralized, train the trainer sessions occurred at the main campus in Moncton.

UdeM is currently in production with the 6.x version of Banner. Goal of UdeM is committed to taking as full advantage as possible of the investment assessment that has been made in the Banner suite of products. All products have been in production for at least one full business cycle and this is a logical point at which to review the business processes and how those processes are accomplished within Banner. The major goals of this activity can be outlined as follows:  Validate staff knowledge and level of training.  Determine use of best business practices.  Identify ways to increase accuracy and ease of access for students and staff.  Increase use of delivered tools.  Suggest changes to existing, or additional processes to meet the changing needs of the institution. Continued on the next page

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 6 Overview and Background, Continued

Participants The following staff members participated in this process:

Name Campus Anne Robichaud Shippagan Brigitte Basque Moncton Brenda Ferguson Shippagan Christine Cormier Moncton Dany Benoit Moncton Denis Gendron Edmundston Denise Savoie Moncton Guylaine Duguay Shippagan Jeannine Belliveau Moncton Juliette Belliveau Moncton Lisa Breau Moncton Lise Brideau Shippagan Louis-Anne Gagnon Edmundston Louise Plourde Edmundston Monique Frenette Edmundston Mélanie Labrie Moncton Mylène Lebouthillier Shippagan Monique Mainville Moncton Muriel Sirois Moncton Noella Arsenault Moncton Nicole Goguen Moncton Norbert Godbout Moncton Nicole Savoie Moncton Suzanne LeBlanc Moncton Valmond Cormier Moncton Yoland Bordeleau Moncton Yves Levesque Edmundston

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 7 Assessment Findings

General All modules of the Banner student system are generally being used by all three observations campuses with the exception of the Recruiting module. Although each campus is part of the UdeM system and many of the policies are the same, the procedures being followed and how the system is used varies by campus. The members of the Information Technology staff continue to provide exceptional service to all users. Although all modules are being used, limited use is being made of the full functionality of the Self Service products, particularly in Recruiting and Admissions.

During the implementation process a strong collaborative effort was made and an implementation team structure developed that brought cross-functional users from the three campuses together. This same structure and process has not formally been established to carry the institution through the successful management of the production environment. This coupled with some turnover in the functional and technical staff has not fostered the same collaborative atmosphere as was present during implementation.

Recommen- It is recommended that a Banner management effort be started on several dation levels. The highest level would be to proceed with the plans to form a Banner Multiple Disciplinary Management Team with membership composed of the directors from the major service areas using all Banner products (Student, Finance, HR, Advancement). This effort will help to operationaliaze an infrastructure that is already in place. The charge of this team would be to provide high-level on-going project management for the Banner efforts. Below this team, work area teams based on product/process should be developed. Both groups should plan for regularly scheduled meetings (a combination of face-to face at least twice per year and teleconference monthly) with the following goals in mind:

 Review current Banner processing on a regular basis.  Review common policies and develop common procedures.  Review current release guides for new functionality and assess impact on UdeM use/processing.  Serve as quality control monitor for user training.  Work with the technical staff to prioritize development needs, particularly in the area of reporting.  Communicate with the various constituencies about Banner use. Advise the Université’s executives concerning future directions and needs with respect to the management of the student information system.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 8 Training and Documentation

Findings As with many clients who have been in production for several years and have a relatively stable work force, UdeM has not developed a documentation plan or training plan that lived beyond the implementation phase. A more experienced user on an informal and as-needed basis often trains new employees in each functional area. Most of the experienced users were involved in the original implementation but there has been some turnover in positions and some of these staff members have moved on to other positions within the Université. Training and procedure manuals tend to be a combination of materials remaining from the implementation cycle with personal notes added.

A second challenge has surfaced due to the decision to maximize the use of the Self-Service products. Although one of the strengths of the Self Service products is ease of use, this should not be viewed as a reason to ignore the training needs of large segments of the population- specifically students and faculty members.

A master Banner calendar does not exist. What needs to be done when and by whom is mostly remembered from one term to another.

Recommen-  Develop an end user training and documentation plan that will include dations a common navigation stage and then training for specific purpose (functionally or process based). The first segment can be developed with available computer based training (CBT) tools available to the Université. This would be preferable to purchasing the SCT available CBTs due to the need for the presentations to be in Canadian French.  Use the Canada list serve to poll other Canadian clients who may have developed documents. A secondary source would be the Btrain (Training discussion list) list serv.  End user training documents should be developed in each functional area featuring screen shots of the Banner forms to be used. These documents should be process based (how to register a student, how to admit a student, etc.).  A training plan should be developed to train new students (during orientation) and new staff members (during new hire orientation) on how to use the Self-Service products. These sessions could also be produced as CBTs, and made available on the UdeM intranet.  A master Banner calendar should be developed indicating all processes (functional and technical) for all Banner products. This will help to identify those time periods where staff resources are over committed.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 9 General Person

Findings Data entry standards have been developed and are followed by those staff members entering person related data. UdeM does use the Self Service Admissions process and allows students to change their address information via Self Service. Both of these approaches increase the possibility of data standards not being followed.

One of the major concerns with the General Person area is the control of duplicate records. UdeM data entry personnel have been well trained and are using extensive search capabilities to help prevent the creation of duplicate records. Most of the duplicate records that exist in the system were duplicates in the legacy system that were converted. As these are discovered, they are addressed by the functional and technical staff.

The validation table for Postal Codes has not been built/maintained.

Recommen-  Review the wording on the Self Service pages. Consider adding dations descriptive text that will guide students and applicant to entering address information according to UdeM standards.  The institution should consider building (or purchasing from Canada Postes) the list of Canadian Postal Codes and populating the GTVZIPC table with these values. This will speed data entry and improve the accuracy of the Postal Code data. This would also allow for the tracking of county codes for addresses and for Self Service users to enter a Postal Code and have the City, Province and County values default in. (Again, this would increase data accuracy). This would also allow UdeM to use the Regionalization functionality in Recruiting and Admissions processing.  With the changes in the International Student Form (GOAINTL), review data entry standards for international students to ensure accurate record keeping, across the three campuses. Also consider using part of the Application Supplemental Information Form (SOASUPL) to capture Admit Province and Admit Nation for applicants.  Review use of query forms that are being used by those who enter new person records into the database, particularly the following two forms:  GUASYST  SOAIDNS  A monthly script is run by the technical staff to help identify potential duplicate records across the database. Consider running this script on a more regular basis.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 10 Recruiting

Findings During the initial implementation the Recruiting module was being used to enter selected data about prospects. Between that time and the present this practice was abandoned. This occurred for two reasons- limited administrative support for data entry, and a change in the amount of information received from the high schools due to privacy regulations. Currently no prospect data is captured in Banner. Necessary data to support communicating with prospects is maintained in a shadow (Excel) database. The limiting factor is the amount of administrative support (one person) available to enter the data into Banner. Source information (high schools and other recruiting sources) has not been maintained over time.

The abandonment of the Banner Recruiting module has an impact beyond the Recruitment Office. Since Banner is an integrated database, not having the prospect information in Banner means that for any of those individuals who apply to UdeM, their General Person data has to be recreated and re-entered into Banner. It also becomes much more difficult to provide comparison reporting following a prospect through application and registration as this data exists in several different databases.

Recommen-  With the start of the next recruiting cycle begin to use Banner dations Recruiting.  Investigate alternate solutions to the data entry challenge including:  Use of the Pocket Recruiter product.  Recruiters entering basic information while on the road via the use of Internet Banner Forms.  Use of the Quick Recruit Form and defaults to speed data entry.  Hiring additional data entry help, either permanent or part time (student workers could also be used).  Using Banner trained staff from other offices and/or other campuses during crunch periods.  Take advantage of the Self Service for Prospects functionality. Potential students would do their own data entry. This would be particularly important for international prospects.  Use Communication Plan processing to manage the sending of letters, emails and printed documents to prospects  Use the Source Background Year Form (SOABGIY) to capture the number of prospects seen at a school- each year

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 11 Admissions

Findings The Admission Office uses standard functionality to support all activities. The Self Service Application Form is used but for processing very few applications. Automated decision rules are used but Communication Plan processing is not. A creative use of the Test Form (SOATEST) has been developed in order to support the need to track individual high school subjects and grades.

The production of standard letters is a cumbersome chore taking up to three days to process. This is partly due to the volume of letters and partly due to the need to capture various statements defining the conditions of acceptance for each applicant.

The Continuing Education Office uses standard Quick Entry processing to manage their student, and all available data is entered to support their activities.

Since the Recruitment module is not currently in use, admissions processing cannot take advantage of the data that would otherwise be available to streamline data entry and perform longitudinal reports across the recruitment/admissions environment.

Recommen-  Perform an analysis of the letter generation needs of the Admissions dations Office with the goal of reducing the almost manual process of producing letters. Through the use of decision codes, student attributes or supplementary data elements (SOASUPL Form) the inclusion of conditions of acceptance language should be able to be automated. A similar system was available in the legacy system, and the goal should be to replicate this functionality using baseline Banner processing. As part of the analysis a review should be made of the letters at each campus. Rather than have one generic letter that attempts to meet many needs, it may be more efficient to have several different letters.  Once the letter generation difficulties are addressed, Banner Communication Plan processing should be used to customize and automate the communication process with applicants. This would allow for a more controlled and customized approach to communicating with prospects and applicants and the spreading of the items being sent to students over a longer time frame.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 12 Admissions, Continued

Recommen-  Access to the High School Form (SOAHSCH) and other admissions dations related forms should be granted to the Continuing Education Office so that information that is collected on these students can be added to the record. This would increase the accuracy and amount of data available for each applicant and be used later if the student decides to apply for full time studies.  A review of the record synchronization between the Admissions Office and the Registrar’s Office should occur after the initial General Student Record is created to ensure that any changes are monitored according to UdeM procedures.  Review the baseline Hold functionality with respect to the new admissions application hold that has been created. This may be a feature that UdeM would find useful.  Review the current use of Self Service Admissions processing/fees processing/deposit processing in order to streamline work in this area as much as possible

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 13 General Student

Findings Extensive manipulation of the student status in the General Student record occurs (from active to inactive and back) within an individual term. This has the effect of losing the audit trail of what was performed when and for what reason. This occurs in part in attempting to answer the question of how many students will be returning or enrolled in a faculty for the next term.

A challenge also occurs when students change campuses. UdeM has restricted access to information by campus codes so at times the end users may be creating records such as account transactions and not be able to see the results due to campus restrictions.

Student Classification Rules (SGACLSR) are built from a generic perspective and as a result have little value for the Université.

Recommen-  Review the reporting need to estimate the number of students dations anticipated in a faculty for a future term. Determine possible alternative methods for meeting this need other than changing the student status within a term. The preferred method for tracking this information would be to change the status for the next term, thus saving the current term record for audit purposes.  A review should be made of the functionality surrounding the Oracle Fine-Grained Access Control (FGAC) that will be a part of Banner 7.0 to see what the impact may be on the current processing activities in the General Student Area.  Review the use of Student Attribute Codes (STVATTS) as part of the Classification Rules (SGACLSR) to provide more relevant program or faculty related classifications to students.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 14 Catalog

Findings All course related data is maintained in the Banner system. The physical course catalog is printed outside of Banner but all other functionality is baseline. Registration restrictions are defined at the Catalog level along with prerequisites and corequisites. Some prerequisite processing is managed through the use of CAPP Areas as prerequisites but this process has not worked as desired.

Recommen-  Review the additional functionality that became available in this dations module in Banner 6.x. Of particular importance to UdeM would be the availability of a Long Course Title (up to 100 characters) for selected courses. Several course titles were aggressively abbreviated to meet the earlier limit of 30 characters. The impact on local reports, including the transcript would need to be reviewed. This recommendation is to be considered carefully as the issue of 30 character long course titles was successfully managed during implementation.  Investigate the use of the Course Syllabus Form (SCASYLB) to capture additional information in courses that may be maintained in other areas of Banner. Particular attention should be paid to the Course URL, Learning Objectives, Required Materials, and Technical Requirements areas of this Form.  Open Learning Registration (OLR) functionality should be reviewed in the Catalog area for applicability for UdeM.  A careful analysis should be performed of those courses needing to use CAPP Areas as prerequisites to ensure that standard prerequisite processing cannot be used. For those courses where this functionality is necessary, continue to test the prerequisite set up and work with the Action Line if errors or unanticipated results are encountered.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 15 Schedule of Classes

Findings Current baseline functionality is being used for the most part. Approximately nine hundred sections are built per term for the Moncton campus and approximately two hundred sections each for the other two campuses.

The Section Roll Process (SSRROLL) is not currently used and new sections are built for each new term.

UdeM uses Infosilem to manage the timetabling of final examinations

Recommen-  Consider using the Section Roll Process (SSRROLL) to reduce the dations effort of creating the course sections for each term, particularly at the Moncton campus.  Open Learning Registration (OLR) functionality should be reviewed in the Schedule area for applicability for UdeM needs.  Consider populating the Section Meeting Time block of the Schedule Form (SSASECT) with the final examination time for each class. This would necessitate the creation of a Final Examination code on the Meeting Type Validation Table (GTVMTYP)

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 16 Registration

Findings Baseline Registration processing is being used by UdeM including Self Service Registration. Alternate PIN processing is not used, and all students with the exception of Continuing Education students (due to payment at time of registration requirements) use the Web to register for classes.

Time Ticketing is not used and registration is enabled at 7am on a workday, and registration is on a first come-first served basis. This has a performance impact not only on the students attempting to register (long delays) but also for administrative users of the network experiencing delays while logging in on that day for the first few hours.

The registration error messages that are seen by the students using Self- Service and the administrative users are only available in English.

UdeM has difficulty enforcing maximum registration hour restrictions due to these restrictions not being able to be set at the program level.

There is a need to reserve seats in sections for Continuing Education students that is not currently being met.

After grades are rolled each term, it is a cumbersome process to recheck for registration errors in the new term for students who may not have successfully passed prior courses.

The Time Status Rules (SFATMST) seem to be not working for UdeM .

Recommen-  Make changes in the scheduling of Web registration. This would not dations negatively impact student selection and would positively impact student and staff satisfaction. First come-first served registration is not a best practice. Options to consider:  Schedule the start so as not to impact business hours- later than 6 pm or on a weekend.  Modify the management of the registration groups into smaller segments at the Moncton campus.  Allow early registrants to be those who would normally encounter fewer conflicts or closed courses (Law school, Engineering program, graduate programs, senior undergraduates).

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 17 Registration, Continued

Recommen-  Revisit the need to set maximum hours limits based on program. This dations could be accomplished by:  Manually set maximum hours in the enrollment block for each student in a program (Shippagan and Edmundston campuses).  Have this field populated by running a script before each registration session (Moncton Campus). There may be relief in this area through the use of Business Rules in Banner 7.x.  Consider redefining the Student Classification rules (SGACLSR) working with a student attribute to populate a special classification code that could be used to reserve seats for Continuing Education students.  Run the new (Banner Student 6.1) Registration Administrative Messages Report (SFRRGAM) regularly during each registration period. This report rechecks for registration errors after grades have been submitted each term. User defined parameters allow for flexibility in defining which errors to check.  Consider adding a message in French to the Self Service registration page that will describe the error messages that will be encountered by students.  Review the rules set up for Time Status calculations (SFATMST). These rules can be developed based on Level, Campus, Faculty, College, Degree, Major and Student Type. There should not be any issues in having the rules meet UdeM processing needs. This is also necessary in order to have T2202A processing work correctly.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 18 Faculty Load

Findings Although registration processing is capturing many of the metrics for performing faculty load analysis, UdeM has not taken the next step that would be to define the analysis rules to allow for full measurement. As would be expected, this is a very sensitive area of information for the institution.

Recommen-  UdeM should consider running a pilot project for faculty load analysis. dations A suggestion would be to define the rules and perform the analysis for one of the smaller campuses (Edmundston or Shippagan) or for one or two faculties at one of the smaller campuses.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 19 Housing

Findings Currently the processing of both housing applications and housing assignments is a manual endeavor at UdeM. Five hundred spaces are managed at the Moncton campus while sixty are managed at Edmundston and 72 at Shippagan.

The Assignment Roll Process (SLRROLL) is not currently being used.

The IT staff is in the process of developing a Web based housing application form.

There appeared to be some difficulty in processing refunds and making assignments to a room to replace student who have left. Refunds are posted manually.

Recommen-  The management of the housing system at the two smaller campuses dations can effectively be performed manually.  The management of the system at the Moncton campus should be automated, where possible.  The IT staff should continue with the development of a Web based housing application form. This would reduce the processing for the Moncton campus by one half.  On an interim basis, create the housing application for a two-term length of time instead of a single term. This will reduce data entry  Review the policies and procedures for the three campuses in the housing area. There appear to be inconsistencies in charging, refunding and the processing of deposits.  A review of the validation forms and control forms for housing needs to occur along with a review of the Banner user manual to study the functionality surrounding refunding and reassignment of space. These two activities should not be a manual process. Particular Forms to review include:  Room Assignment Status Codes (STVASCD)  Room Assignment Status Control Form (SLAASCD)  Housing Term Control Form (SLATERM)  The Moncton campus should investigate the possibility of using the automated assignment process to assist with processing.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 20 End of Term Processing/Academic History

Findings UdeM needs to calculate and display GPAs at the program level. Because of this, extensive use of Degree Records (SHADEGR) is necessary as is manipulation of the “Applied” indicator in order to calculate a Degree GPA.

The term roll process executed from the Class Roster Form (SFASLST) appears to not be working correctly.

The instructors enter grades via the web. The Self Service for Faculty Electronic Gradebook is not currently being used.

Students are able to review their academic history via the Web, but the calculation of Grade Point Averages (GPAs) appears to be inconsistent- sometimes rounding, and sometime truncating.

The evaluation of transfer credit is performed manually with the use of the Transfer Course Information Form (SHATRNS).

Baseline Grade Reports (SHRGRDE) are not used in favor of transcripts and the ability of students to review their grades via Self Service.

A modified transcript report is used due to the special needs of UdeM as far as French translation and GPA by program calculation and display. The current transcript is one version behind the latest version of Banner.

The graduation process begins with the Registrar’s Office attempting to determine who might be able to graduate. This is a very labor-intensive activity and prone to inaccuracy.

Recommen-  Work with the Action Line to discover why the GPA display is dations inconsistent in the Web.  Consider the possibility of allowing students to enter official transcript requests via the Web. Payment could be enabled with the use of a payment gateway service, or a status code develop that would indicate to the student that the transcript has not been processed pending receipt of funds. By enabling this service, students will be able to monitor the progress of the request on-line.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 21 End of Term Processing/Academic History, Continued

Recommen-  Develop a graduation application process and procedure that would dations require potential graduates to submit an application to graduate. This would then trigger the degree completion audit process. The best practice would be to develop a Web-based form that student could submit. A population selection could be used to identify final year students from each faculty and process a targeted email to remind the students to apply for graduation.  The current transcript needs to be brought forward to the latest supported released of Banner.  Develop a pilot program for the use of automated transfer articulation. A possible candidate would be the processing of CÉGEP’s transcripts at the Edmundston campus. Using the automated process would ensure consistency in evaluations and for historical feeder schools such as the CÉGEPS, speed the entry and evaluation of transfer credit.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 22 Accounts Receivable

Findings Baseline Accounts Receivable (A/R) processing is being used by all three campuses but there are slight variations in the procedures at each. In order to support the three charts of account that exist (one per campus- a Banner Finance implementation decision) three complete sets of Detail Codes (TSADETC) have been built and are maintained. Term-based detail codes are not being used.

Several problems have been encountered with the production of bills, which are sent out at different times for each campus. Some of these problems are output related (wanting to print on letterhead with multiple copies) and some are process related (copies of all bills are being printed even when a minimum account balance of $100 is selected).

The creation of holds based on minimum account balances is a manual process at the present time.

Installment plans and third-party payment plans are not currently being used. Emergency loans are made and they are managed differently at each campus.

Due to the design of the system and the security set up being used, some cashiers are creating transactions but unable to see the results because the campus code of the student may be different than the campus code of the cashier.

Recommen-  Enable Web payment for processing Official Web Transcript dations Requests. This would be facilitated with the use of a payment gateway service, or a status code developed that would indicate to the student that the transcript has not been processed pending receipt of funds. By enabling this service, students will be able to monitor the progress of the requests on-line.  The A/R managers of each campus should meet and discuss processing and procedures. If there is a business reason for different policies and procedures these should be documented. Otherwise common policies and procedures would be less confusing.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 23 Accounts Receivable, Continued

Recommen-  UdeM should review the use of the baseline Auto Hold/Release Dations process (TGPHOLD, TGAHOLD) to automate the application of holds based on account balances at the smaller campuses.  UdeM should engage the services of an SCT A/R specialist for a targeted, remote consulting session to review the set up and production of bills and to review other miscellaneous A/R transactions and problems. With the investment of a half or full day of remote consulting many of the small nagging irritations would be dealt with. This session would cover not only Student A/R but also non-Student A/R processing.  An analysis of the billing needs of the Université should be made to define what is desired, then develop a process to meet these needs.  UdeM should review the functionality of both Evisions, Inc. and SCT’s e~Print products to customize the bills and assist with distributing and archiving these and other reports.  Consider being less restrictive on access to data by end users so that more complete account records are available for review as a student changes campuses.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 24 CAPP

Findings UdeM is using baseline CAPP processing. Students are not currently able to run their own compliances via Self Service. A combination of both captive and non-captive programs is being used and adjustments are not being tacked in the system, but are applied manually outside of the system.

CAPP areas are being used for prerequisite checking but there seems to be some problems with the process.

Mention was made of some unused courses not being displayed on some compliances.

CAPP knowledge for the maintenance and development of the rules for the most part rests with one individual.

Recommen-  Enable students to perform their own compliances via Self Service. dations This is particularly important for students who may wish to perform “what if” evaluations as they consider program changes.  Contact the Action Line to work through the problem of unused courses not being displayed and CAPP Areas for prerequisites not working correctly.  Develop a pilot program for the utilization of Adjustment Processing within Banner. A few programs or an individual faculty at each campus could be selected.  Knowledge of how to build and maintain the CAPP rules needs to be distributed more widely. This knowledge rests with too few people currently.  Review the documentation on Reuse Indicators and Priority of Use processing for CAPP areas to ensure proper processing.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 25 Reporting

Findings The IT staff is in the process of developing a UdeM datamart to meet many of the reporting needs of the users. The IT staff has also developed several custom views to assist with the production of reports and manage such needs as the calculation and display of program GPAs.

Some reporting needs are not currently being met because the data to support the need is not being captured either in the system or anywhere else (recruiting data for instance). Other needs are not being met because the end users may not be sure of how to access the information.

Recommen-  A evaluation of the reporting strategy employed by the institution dations should be made. Many end users are not fully aware of the ability to create their own reports using the delivered Banner Object:Access views coupled with an ODBC compliant reporting tool. With the investment of minimal training time there could be a significant return in the ability of the end users to create and run their own reports. Most likely the training resources needed are already available internally at the Université.  Review the script and reports that have been developed. Determine if they are still meeting the need of the end users.  Some reporting scripts have been developed and not fully tested or delivered to the end users. This should be expedited.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 26 Technical Support

Findings The IT staff is a talented and hard working group of individuals who have provided excellent services to the und users of the student system. Approximately sixty percent of available time is spent on supporting the end users, and the remaining forty percent on development activities. Technical support is a centralized activity at UdeM.

Various interfaces are maintained to the student system including interfaces to the library system, Infosilem system (examinations), the Sports Centre, ID system, and email system.

Recommen-  Keep up the good work. dations  In anticipation of the release of Banner 7.0 (December 2004), investigate the impact of changing to the Internet Native version of Banner (INB). There may be an infrastructure and licensing impact.  Develop a production calendar that can be merged with the end users’ process calendar to provide a combined view of what is performed when and by whom in Banner. This will help to match available resources to institutional need.  Continue with the efforts to develop the UdeM datamart.  Consider the impact or running the interfaces to other systems on a more regular basis to increase accuracy of record keeping.  Make a concerted effort to document all activities that have been performed to date. Too much information resides in the minds of the staff. If staff turnover were to increase, this could cause problems.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 27 Miscellaneous

Findings There are several recommendations that are more general in nature and cannot be logically placed under the process headings. They are listed here.

Recommen-  All Banner users should make more use of some of the available help dations resources:  Listservs- both subscribing to these and participating in the posting and responding to inquiries. Particular use should be made of the BCanada listserv.  Action Line/Action Web. When faced with a question or unanticipated result, the first course of action should be the searching of the Known Issues, and generation of an Action Line contact.  All users should be more proactive in reviewing the Banner Product Calendar and reviewing the release guides and upgrade guides when available.  Functional users responsible for process areas should review the Banner User Guides on a regular basis to refresh their memories on baseline functionality.  Do not hesitate to develop and use the connections with other Banner users in Eastern Canada  UdeM should take another look at the SCT Luminis product, particularly before investing in the development of a local Web portal. Significant changes have been made since the last time the product was reviewed, and the current version may provide a considerable value for the institution.

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 28 Appendix A- Interview Schedule

Process improvement assessment - Checklist

Évaluation du module étudiant de Socrate Resp. Pers. Add. Heure Logistique Réunion - préparation (18 février) DB Groupe coordination 10h00 - 12h00 Poste de travail avec connection internet (Rég.) DB -- -- Portable pour la salle 171T DB -- -- Projecteur (location) DB -- -- Logistique technique (prises réseaux, prise téléphone) DB -- -- Installation du client Socrate et Compte - accès à Socrate JB -- -- Polycomm - audioconférence (location) DB -- -- Pont audioconférence - 858-4360 (réservation) DB -- -- Liste de numéro de téléphone DB -- -- Salle de réunion pour entrevues de petit groupe DB -- -- Salle de réunion pour réunions de gros groupe DB -- --

Pre-Work Sample reports MF, JB -- -- Sample user manuals MF, JB -- -- Liste des questions pour journée de consultation (vend.) DB, MF -- -- Horaire des sessions de consultation DB -- --

Jour 1 - 8 mars Introductions & Student Functionnal Team Meeting - Kick Off DB, SL Groupe coordination 14h00 - 14h30 Document Review JB, MF -- 14h30 - 15h30 MM, ML, JB2, CC, BF, General Person MF PB 15h30 - 16h30

Jour 2 - 9 mars Recruiting YB EDM, SHI, MF 9h00 - 10h15 Break Admissions MF CC, BF, PB, MM 10h30 - 12h00

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 29 Appendix A- Interview Schedule, Continued

Resp. Pers. Add. Heure Lunch 12h00 - 13h00 General Student MF CC, BF, PB, MM, LP 13h00 - 14h00 Break ML, Housing JB MF, LB2, YL, DG 14h15 - 15h30 Other student Areas JB MF 15h30 - 16h30

Jour 3 - 10 mars Catalog YP 9h00 - 9h45 Schedule MF HS, LG, AR 9h45 - 10h45

Registration VC MS, AR, LG, MM, BF, GD, NG, DG 10h45 - 12h00 Lunch 12h00 - 13h00 Academic History VC MF, BB, NG, AR, LG 13h00 - 14h30 Transfer Articulation VC DL 14h30 - 15h00 Break 15h00- 15h15 Graduation Processing VC AR, LG 15h15 - 16h00

Jour 4 - 11 mars

Tuition, Fee Assessment and Billing MS NG2, GD, ML2, DG, JB, MM 9h00 - 12h00 Lunch Degree Audit (CAPP) NA NA, VC, AR, MF, LG 13h00 - 14h45 Faculty Load NA NA, VC, AR, MF, LG 14h45 - 15h00 Break Student Functionnal Area Team Meeting - Wrap Up All Groupe coordination 15h00 - 16h30

Jour 5 - 12 mars - General Consulting (9h00 - 16h00) Faculty load (30 min) VC LS, MF, JB 9h00 - 9h30 CAPP et Adjustments (1 heure) NA VC, MF, JB 9h30 - 10h00 Break

Fee Assessment (2 heures) MS NG, GD2, ML2, DG, JB, MM 10h15 - 12h15 Lunch 12h15 - 13h15 Recruiting 13h15 - 14h15 Open session (questions) 14h15 - 14h45 Break 14h45 - 15h00 V7.0 Preview and other products (1 heure) DB Groupe coordination 15h00 - 16h00

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 30 Appendix A- Interview Schedule, Continued

Légende: Groupe coordination Groupe élargie AR - Anne Robichaud AR - Anne Robichaud MF - Monique Frenette DB - Dany Benoit BB - Brigitte Basque ML - Mélanie Labrie DS - Denise Savoie BF - Brenda Ferguson ML2 - Mylène Lebouthillier JB - Jeannine Belliveau CC - Christine Cormier MM - Monique Mainville LB - Lisa Breau DB - Dany Benoit MS - Muriel Sirois MF - Monique Frenette DG - Denis Gendron NA - Noella Arsenault ML - Mélanie Labrie DL - Diane Landry NG - Nicole Goguen MS - Muriel Sirois DS - Denise Savoie NG2 - Norbert Godbout NA - Noella Arsenault GD - Guylaine Duguay PB - Patricia Boucher NG - Norbert Godbout JB - Jeannine Belliveau SL - Suzanne Leblanc SL - Suzanne Leblanc JB2- Juliette Belliveau VC - Valmond Cormier VC - Valmond Cormier LB - Lisa Breau YB - Yoland Bordeleau YB - Yoland Bordeleau LB2 - Lise Brideau YP - Yvonne R. Poirier LG - Louis-Anne Gagnon YL - Yves Levesque LP - Louise Plourde créé par Dany Benoit 2004/02/22

2004. SunGard SCT, Inc. Process Improvement Assessment: Université de Moncton Page 31