Loyola College in Maryland
Administrative Technology Governance Committee
Meeting Minutes: August 14, 2008
2:00pm – 4:00 pm
Skip Casey Louise Finn (co-chair) Diane Morris
Terra Schehr Bruce Rice David Blohm (for Amy Filardo)
Mark Lindenmeyer Rich Sigler
Sarah Mansfield Earl Smith
Pat Dalrymple Steve Rafferty
Jason Youngers Tom Terenyi
Scott Sax Nancy Pope
Megan Linz Dickinson
David Beaupre Tara Mangaya Helen Aberle Courtney Jolley
Debbie Herman-Miller Chris Gioconda Barry Rice
Elena Hicks Paul Smith Scott Greatorex Donna Riley
Mike Mansfield Rita Steiner Tom Podles Jen Smith
Marge Vale Anne Young
1. The 7/10/08 Meeting Minutes were approved.
2. The schedule for the volunteer scribe for each monthly meeting is posted on Blackboard.
Tom Podles is scheduled for the September meeting.
3. New Project Proposals (Rich)
Rich introduced three new project proposals, and explained a presentation procedure
where the project advocate would speak first, followed by the investigator assigned to the
project from Tech. Services. The project portfolio is presented, and then the project is
submitted for discussion and vote.
a. AIG Timekeeping (Earl Smith, Project Advocate; Rich Sigler, TS Investigator)
Earl explained that having reviewed about four other systems, AIG was selected as a
replacement for Kronos, and is designed to be a college-wide timekeeping system. The
only department on campus currently using Kronos is Facilities. There were three
primary reasons for choosing AIG: increased functionality, better customer service, and
cost. It is estimated that AIG will save the campus 50K a year.
Rich explained that the proposal is for the ongoing implementation and expenses,
maintenance and support for the project, which had already begun as an extension and
replacement of Kronos. He presented a proposal investigation form and a technology
project proposal that indicated the results of an investigation of the project, including
deliverables, exclusions, milestones, risks, timeline, and costs. Rich remarked that there
was an error in the “exclusions” section of the proposal investigation form: in fact, AIG
does propose to create a file to be sent back to Colleague in the same format as the
existing Kronos import.
Earl has already created a manual workaround for the import of information from
Colleague into AIG, and is comfortable moving forward without the export file indicated
as a deliverable from Tech. Services for now. Rich noted that total 1st year cost estimates
as $46697.90 in start up dollars, 350 hours of start-up time, and $7002.90 for support and
maintenance. He concluded that moving forward and seeing the initiative successfully
through to the end of implementation was a viable decision at this point.
In discussion of the project, Earl clarified that the entire campus would be using the
system: data on administrators’ leave would go back to Colleague and paper leave report
forms would no longer be used. Skip explained that the system would allow greater
consistency in maintaining and recording leave. Earl explained that the fingerprint
readers are an option for logging in for those who do not have access to a computer, but
emphasized that the fingerprint image itself is not captured. Earl also mentioned that
supervisors will be able to check on vacation time requested or used by employees.
Terra mentioned asked if we have considered that a spike in overtime may be a possible
end result of using the system. A discussion of overtime policy and practice ensued: how
overtime is approved, and how overtime is actually implemented in practice informally in
the campus culture. Some concluded that better communication is needed about overtime
b. Rideshare application (Skip Casey, Project Advocate; Tom Terenyi, TS
Skip said there was not initially enough interest in carpooling a year ago, but the results
of a more recent survey indicate that there is now enough interest in potentially cost-
saving measures such as carpool and a light rail shuttle.
Tom presented two options for a self-serve website to facilitate sign-ups for carpools, and
to express interest in the Light Rail shuttle: by means of a hosted solution, or an in-house
solution using Microsoft Sharepoint.
Tom indicated that the hosted solution should allow for a mid-September launch, and
should cost about $700 each year, and require about 33 start-up hours. The in-house
option would require a custom solution, require about 61 start-up hours, and would likely
not launch until late September or early October. Tom concluded that the hosted solution
through ERideShare was a more viable option, and noted that several “big name
companies as well as several institutions of higher education” used it.
Rich reminded the group that the estimated timeline assumes we actually have the
resources available. Bruce clarified that start-up hours are an indicator of total number of
hours on the project; that is, a 40-hour start-up hour estimation does not mean that the
project is complete in a week.
In discussion, Skip observed that, while graduate students were not formally surveyed, he
received a number of inquiries about carpools from that population (In particular, from
graduate students in Columbia and Timonium). However, Skip suggested we would open
the system to employees first, and then to students later.
Jason wondered if the system may leave the college open to liability. Skip agreed, and
suggested we may need a disclaimer to be contained in the system somewhere. Skip will
check with college counsel about the issue of liability. Terra proposed the idea of simply
using the craigslist rideshare feature.
c. CCSJ Database for Service and Service Learning (Robin Crews, Megan Linz-
Dickinson, Project Advocates; Scott Sax, TS Investigator)
Robin gave a brief chronology/history of how the project evolved. When he was Director
of Service Learning at UC Boulder, he was part of a task force that helped create a web-
based system that allowed anyone in the community to check a database for available
service opportunities by several different criteria, such as distance from campus or
population served. At Loyola, such a system could not only help the individual
volunteer, but also faculty of service learning courses which either require service, or
feature service as an optional component. Such service opportunities may be of
numerous types: immersion, one-time, weekly, etc. Robin and Megan also noted that
more offices are asking CCSJ for statistical information, and that there is also a need to
better assess who is engaging in service.
To address these needs, Scott indicated that a back end database could be configured
within Colleague. Colleague can address about 75% of the needs that CCSJ expressed,
and customizations could be added as needed. A web front end could be created using
WebAdvisor or possibly SharePoint to help various constituents such as students, faculty,
community partners, CCSJ staff, and others interact with and search the database. In
addition, such a solution would handle reporting needs. Scott explained a few risks
associated with this approach, including scope creep, and the possibility that software
patches, fixes, and upgrades could affect the custom screens built in Colleague. He also
explained the constraints and costs, as explained in the investigation form that was
distributed to the group.
Scott explained that the project may be accomplished in three phases: 1) customization of
Colleague to allow CCSJ to begin entering data, 2) reporting, and 3) the front end
portion. Completion of the entire project is estimated at a year.
4. Project Portfolio
Louise distributed a new version of the Technology Project Portfolio (External Projects) in a
new format. This version was sorted by division, and describes various projects “in flight” in
one of four phases. Louise explained that there are also internal projects which are not
indicated on the form. She also explained the various categories in which the projects were
placed: Enhancement to the existing environment (EN), Infrastructure improvement (IN), and
Transformational (TR). She suggested we schedule a special meeting to assign priorities to
each project in the portfolio (initially High, Medium, or Low). The portfolio will be available
in Sharepoint on the PMO site to allow one to check the status of any given project. Not all
projects have their own Sharepoint site, however.
Louise explained that TS has begun to examine each project as to how much effort is required
by their staff. Rich demonstrated how his staff time is currently utilized, and provided a
context for how availability of staff can be assessed for new projects. He handed out a
“Technology Projects and Development Skill Diagram to illustrate, and also explained a
“bandwidth chart” which assists in the decision-making process regarding how time is
allocated to various staff, and how projects are scheduled.
5. New Project Proposals: Discussions, Decisions, Prioritization
AIG timekeeping project
Discussion continued along the same topics from earlier in the meeting: how the software
would help enforce campus policy as well as legal compliance, liability, campus cultural
impact, and overtime. No vote was taken, but the project is already in flight.
Terra reminded the group that every new project does consume time and resources, and that
the Rideshare application does not appear to be a high priority. Skip maintained that the
solution proposed should not require a great expenditure of resources, and would be free for
users to access. Sarah mentioned that we must be cognizant of our liability with whatever
solution we approve. Jason indicated that the cost of using the proposed program is very low.
Skip added that graduate students were not formally surveyed, but some have already
expressed interest in carpooling. Mark mentioned that having a service that could allow users
to filter for just other members of the Loyola community could be attractive for some. The
Loyola-sponsored outsourced solution (ERideshare) passed.
Louise and Pat commended the investigators for taking the time to consider Colleague as a
solution. Terra mentioned that this project could someday be broadened to allow us to report
in aggregate on leadership activities, engagement in recreational sports, and so on. Rich
indicated that more analysis is needed to determine the exact cost of the project. Skip
mentioned that the ability to report on service is of strategic advantage to the college, and sets
us apart from many other institutions. The group voted in favor of moving forward with the
6. CORE Update
Steve indicated that the Colleague test account is up to date on patches, and production would
be updated over the weekend. Bruce recognized the efforts of Tara Mangaya and her crew to
get Colleague ready. He mentioned that the patches that were held back had to do with the
way addresses were being treated. Colleague has fixed their program to handle current
addresses more efficiently, but Loyola has had to implement workarounds for addresses
entered prior to that time. Bruce reminded the group that in testing, anything that involves
the entry, changing, or printing of addresses (including labels) should be looked at closely.
7. Collection of Social Security Number Policy
Mark Lindenmeyer maintained that we need to collect the SSN as early as possible in any
individual’s association with the college (eg. No later than the application stage for
Prospective students, as early as possible for applicants to the college through HR). He
indicated alarm that we do not currently have a Social Security number policy. Hundreds of
colleges do have such a policy, and Mark shared samples of these policies with the group. He
suggested we create a committee to create a policy for Loyola.
Mark said that the SSN is the single best identifier for individuals, and reduces possibility for
error. The effort to collect SSNs later is an inefficient process, sometimes necessitating the
need to collect the SSN over the phone. Mark reminded the group that Financial Aid is
permitted to collect SSNs by law, but we must protect and secure them.
Skip mentioned that HR is not allowed to require the SSN as proof of eligibility for work, but
must require the SSN after the employee is hired, and before the start of work. Skip
suggested creating separate policies for students and employees. Jason wondered if we might
fit the SSN as one of the data types in our security policy on data retention and destruction.
Steve Rafferty volunteered to chair the group to draft a policy, and Mark Lindenmeyer and
Pat Dalrymple volunteered to assist. Louise suggested we get additional volunteers at the
next TSAC meeting.
Nancy Pope was introduced to the group as our new Datatel account manager:
firstname.lastname@example.org (703) 968-6285.
Other items on the agenda were not addressed because of lack of time. Meeting adjourned at