Student Information System (SIS) Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Review

Update Archive

For the most recent update, visit the SIS ERP Review Update page here.

May 7, 2018

  • The following tasks were accomplished for the Date Alignment project:
    • All academic and operational dates were identified within Admissions, Cashiers, Financial Aid and Registrars along with the rationale for the dates.
    • All offices were asked to identify which dates could be aligned considering whether or not alignment would: 1) impact the student experience around cross-campus enrollment and course sharing; 2) positively impact compliance or Systemwide reporting; 3) enable getting to one instance of the SIS and 4) enable a shared services model.
      • Cashiers.
        • Align: Billing Dates, Due Dates Fall Semester, Due Dates Spring Semester, and Grace Periods.
        • Further discussion needed: Due Dates Summer Semester, Cancellation Dates and Refund Dates (with Registrar).
      • Admissions.
        • The deadlines for Admissions are generally rolling; no hard deadlines.
        • Will be willing to align dates if Admissions is moved to a shared services model.
  • The following tasks were accomplished for IT Cost Investigation related processes.
    • Staff from Admissions, Cashiers, Financial Aid, and Registrars met with representatives from Highland, who own Perceptive Content (ImageNow). Highland also owns Brainware, an OCR product.
      • Key points:
        • The focus of the discussion was on transcript processing for admissions purposes but other processes within SIS, HR and Finance could be managed with the technology.
        • UM could have individuals trained to build out the processes; vendor does not need to do this for UM. Training will be required for UM staff.
        • Other institutions using this technology are repurposing staff once they no longer need to have them entering data manually.
        • The University of Arkansas is a client and we could speak with them about their experiences.
    • AcademicWorks versus home grown system for scholarship processing.
      • S&T, UMKC and UMSL are now using AcademicWorks and MU is using a home grown system.
      • Both systems are providing the campuses what they need. The modification needed by MU uses very little technical work so moving away from that would not buy the team resources and for MU, the cost would be significant to move to AcademicWorks for MU.
      • At this time, the decision made is to make no changes to the scholarship management systems.
  • Impacts on Department and/or Faculty.
    • A project charter is being written at MU related to Study Abroad. The focus of the project is moving the current course proposal process from one that is paper-based to online. While this project is not directly connected to issues identified during the initial SIS ERP effort, there are plans to include more transparent fiscal information to the project scope to ensure that problems uncovered by MU’s Office of Cashiers during the initial SIS ERP effort will be alleviated. Input has been requested from MU Office of Cashiers to include within the project charter.
  • A report describing the full project’s progress was submitted to Dr. Choi for the April 12-13 Board of Curators Meeting.

March 30, 2018

  • A shorter report based on the final report was written and responsibility was assigned to four groups (i.e., 1) senior leaders; 2) functional areas; 3) functional areas in collaboration with EAS; and 4) EAS) for tackling the ~46 high impact business processes identified through the work of the SIS ERP task force.
  • The processes requiring senior leader input (n=20) were grouped: 1) Students’ Schedules and Fees – Downstream Effects; 2) IT Cost Investigations; 3) Academic Impact – Faculty Input Required; 4) Cashiers and Financial Aid Alignment.
    • Investigations are underway for all processes within “IT Cost Investigations” and an IT solution with a funding request (if needed) will be submitted in April (per Ben Canlas).
  • These 20 processes were presented to the Provosts and CFOs on February 22. They asked that Dr. Gary Allen and Ryan Rapp determine which processes were candidates for creating one common process. While some processes will require broader input (tuition and fees; add/drop/swap/edit; transfer credits) it was decided that the remaining processes should be resolved by implementing a “one way of doing things” via a common solution, business process, etc. The Provosts and CFOs agreed with this strategy.
  • The project facilitator and project manager met with the Intercampus Faculty Council to discuss aligning academic dates. The IFC asked that the Registrars review dates and make recommendations that will then be vetted with each campuses’ faculty. Given that dates touch multiple offices, all directors of Cashiers, Financial Aid, and Registrars were convened. They have identified all dates, academic, administrative and operational. See below for continuing work.
  • SIS ERP Task Force was reconvened in mid-March. Updates were provided and high impact projects started: date alignment and Pell disbursements.

December 4, 2017
Began drafting a report that will provide recommendations on moving forward with the 45 business processes that were evaluated during the course of the project. Change recommendations are being placed into five buckets:

  1. No change recommended at this time for particular processes.
  2. EAS investigates changes to the SIS for the 9.2 upgrade.
  3. Collaborative effort between the functional area(s) and EAS to make changes to both the business process and the SIS.
  4. Functional areas redesign the business process – does not involve EAS.
  5. Leadership must make decisions about administrative and academic policies and procedures prior to adjustments being made to the actual business process.

November 7, 2017

  • Team leads met with their respective provosts to discuss the September 19th presentation and get feedback on stated focus moving forward.
  • Completed reviewing change recommendations for business processes from the final report. Changes recommendations are being placed into three “buckets”:
    • No change recommended.
    • Collaborative effort between functional area(s) and EAS to start making changes. Taking action will still require direction from leaders in many cases.
    • Senior leaders need to make decisions before action can be taken.
  • Team leads and AACRAO consultant (Dr. Reid Kisling) met with UMAOs on October 20, 2017.
    • Discussion focused on the need to have more clarity around what it will mean, administratively, to be the same until the campuses need to be different.
    • UMAOs have asked that the project be put on hold until strategic plans at the four campuses are done and what being the same until the campuses need to be different is clearly defined.

October 6, 2017

  • Submitted final report to Gary Allen and Steve Graham, August 1, 2017.
  • Presented outcomes to UMAOs, September 19, 2017. Key messages:
    • Clarity concerning how the campuses should be the same and where they should be different.
    • The need for a governance structure that aligns with the System’s organizational structure.
    • Opportunities in the current environment.
    • The need for a highly architected student system that allows for integration of additional and necessary support systems
  • Reviewing change recommendations made within the final report. The team made recommendations based on changes to the current system (v9.0), during the upgrade to v9.2, and/or a future system. These recommendations are being analyzed by the EAS team to determine feasibility of the change and next steps.
  • A consultant from AACRAO (American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers) has been hired to provide feedback on the committee process, outcomes and assist in communicating to the UMAOs what the necessary next steps must be.

June 8, 2017

  1. Completed SIPOCs on all 45 processes; analyze the output.
  2. Completed exercises #4-#5 (discussion of output of SIPOCs, campuses differences, and recommendations for future changes).
  3. Continued the 3rd party systems and apps collection process and began discussions about keeping these lists up-to-date in the future.
  4. Began drafting the Final Recommendations document.

May 23, 2017

  1. Completed data analysis of the prioritized business processes.
  2. Identified processes to be fully document/evaluated for exercises #3-#5; 46 processes were identified:
    • Admissions: 6
    • Cashiers: 11
    • Financial Aid: 15
    • Registrar: 14
  3. Began exercise #3 – SIPOCs. This involves identifying the suppliers to the process, inputs and outputs, customers, and the process at a high level.
  4. Continued identifying 3rd party systems and apps at each campus.

April 26, 2017

  1. Ran all identified business processes (600+) through the prioritization instrument (Exercise #2).
  2. Began analysis of prioritized processes data.
  3. Met with MU K-12 online and MU Extension – discussed considerations for a Future SIS.
  4. Began collecting from each campus 3rd party systems and apps (UMSL and EAS).
  5. Documented all communication strategies for the project.
  6. Conducted interviews with all team leads focusing on project progress and identifying any issues.

March 22, 2017

  1. Create SIS ERP Information Webpage. The webpage lives on UMKC’s online page: The team leads have been instructed to contact their Provost’s office and have them place a link on the Provost pages.
  2. Conducted training for individuals who will facilitate the meetings with subject matter experts for Exercise #3 (SIPOC), Exercise #4 (Identifying Differences), and Exercise #5 (Recommendations).
  3. Tested adjusted prioritization matrix and finalized.
  4. Created support documentation for the prioritization matrix.
  5. Began developing the Stewardship/Governance Principles for the project.

February 20, 2017

  1. Completed Exercise #1 – Normalization with Admissions, Cashiers, Financial Aid, and Registrars.
  2. Tested prioritization matrix with functional areas listed above and made adjustments.
  3. Began aligning the work EAS is conducting on mods with the SIS ERP project.
  4. Facilitator training materials for Exercises 3-5 drafted; training set for March 15, 2017 in Columbia.
  5. Work breakdown structure adjusted to align with the current work status of the project.
  6. “Security,” “Technical” and “Support” defined in relationship to this project.

January 9, 2017

  1. Finished collecting business processes for all functional areas (Registrar, Admissions,Financial Aid, and Cashiers).
  2. Finalized a draft of the instrument that will be used to prioritize the business processes that need to be documented/evaluated.
  3. Began identifying processes from functional areas to test the prioritization instrument.
  4. Identified facilitators at each campus and from system that will assist functional experts during the documentation/evaluation process.
  5. Began developing facilitator schedule/training materials.
  6. Presented update to UMAOs.