160 likes | 293 Views
On June 5, 2014, participants at the NMTIE event engaged in discussions surrounding the establishment of a New Mexico Banner Consortium. Key topics included best practices for implementing Banner XE, lessons learned from beta partners, and the benefits and concerns of consortium structure. Attendees, including representatives from NMSU, UNM, and CNM, explored strategies for standardization, training, and collective bargaining. Collaborative goals were outlined, emphasizing the importance of communication and shared solutions for enhancing technical architecture across institutions.
E N D
Agenda Welcome Introductions NMTIE Event Recap Discussion on Consortium Group Structure Leadership Group Technical Architecture Training Contracts & RFP Security NM Banner XE Roadmap/Timeline
Welcome Introductions • NMSU • Pamela Jeffries, Sr. Director, Enterprise Application Services • Pankaj Sharma, ICT Project Management Office • Alejandro Garcia, ICT Project Management Office • Grace La Torra, ICT Project Management Office • CNM • Joe Gieri, Office of IT Services Executive Director • Ray Avila, Enterprise Application Director • UNM • Duane Arruti, IT Applications Director • Paige Briggs, IT Applications Manager
NMTIE Event Recap Inaugural Banner Track effort at NMTIE • Best Practices for Implementing Banner XE (Alan Hansen, VP of Product Enhancement at Ellucian) • Lessons Learned from a Beta Partner (TTU) • Planning and Preparation (NMSU, UNM) • Chartering a NM Banner Consortium (Round Table) • Existing Collaborative Groups • Benefits/Concerns of a Consortium • Proposed Structures/Subcommittees
Existing Collaborative Groups • CHECS • NM Independent Community College • NM Financial Aid group • Registrars NM Registrars Group • NM IT Exchange (smaller version of Banner Consortium) • NM Oracle Users Group • Security Group
Benefits/Concerns of a Consortium Benefits: • Training • Standardization • Cost Benefits • Sharing • Idea & Collaboration • Best practices • No duplications of effort • Common reporting - HED • Simplify state data • 3rd Party Integration & inventory/version/contact/issues • Leverage buying power • Concerns: • More meetings • Consensus • Fizzle with no bang • Different priorities and timelines • All our eggs in one basket • Need more users in the consortium • to balance technical • Funding considerations • Legislators • Focus
Brainstorming on Subcommittees • Leadership Committee to cover structure and communication • Technical Architecture Group • Module specific with Tech and Users • Training Group • Contracts/RFP Group reviewing agreements • CHECS? (What are they currently doing) • Reporting/Data Management • Ellucian Code Repository • Community/Outreach • Security • Compliance • Leveraging shared infrastructure/Service Center Model • Common Infrastructure Group • Common App Development Group • DBA
Discussion on Consortium Group Structure • The purpose of each group is • To be a forum for exchange of ideas, • To identify common problems, and • To collaborate on scalable common solutions
Discussion on Consortium Group Structure • Leadership • Provide strategic guidance to the consortium • Technical Architecture • Identify opportunities for standardizing technical architecture across the state and propose recommended scalable technical architecture(s) • Training • Identify common training needs and propose a recommended training curriculum for consortium members
Discussion on Consortium Group Structure • Contracts & RFP • Identify opportunities for collective bargaining with vendors • Security • Identify common security needs and recommend a scalable security framework
Discussion on Consortium Group Structure • Discussion points • Process for constituting the groups • Open enrollment or through nomination by respective institutions? • How do we appropriately balance representation? • Chartering the groups • What is the charge of each group?