Data Management, A Cognitive Choice

1. Data Management, A Cognitive Choice Jeffrey Castle Desktop Support Manager Brian Wallace Student Administration Manager Psychology Department, LSA

2. Background • Size of the department • 89 Faculty Members • 187 Graduate Students • 60 Administrative and Research Staff • 1800 Psychology Undergraduate Concentrators • 310 Undergraduate Classes (roughly 8000 undergraduate seats filled) • 177 Graduate Classes • 41 Faculty members with active research grants • The department has received over $72M in direct research cost over the last 5 years

3. The Story • The academic enterprise takes an extraordinary amount of effort and coordination to manage. Academic units need access to central and local data quickly and efficiently, often in aggregate form, to make decisions.

4. The Story: Central and Local Data • In 2001 at the Department of Psychology central and local data was tracked and stored in disparate systems of data management: M-Pathways Paper Meeting Maker Personnel Memory Excel File Maker Pro Email Word

5. The Story: Data Management • The choice of data management was left to each administrative office and typically based on the knowledge and experience of the personnel within the office. • Much of the data across the administrative offices was redundantly tracked using different metrics and granularity. • Generating reports using data from the various offices was extremely difficult and impossible if the report had to meet a tight deadline.

6. The Story: M-Pathways • Likewise, M-Pathways provided access to central data, but creating reports across the various CPUs was very challenging. • When data needed to be aggregated from M-Pathways, Prism, and local data the task could involve multiple administrative offices and at times be beyond staff skill level.

7. The Story: A Change Was Necessary • The goal for change was a single system with the following properties: • Each administrative office has the ability to manage the information directly pertaining to its responsibility • Share information from each administrative office across the department • Pull information from units outside the department as needed • Quickly and easily aggregate data to generate canned or ad hoc reports • Supports evidence based decisions

8. The Story: We Decided To Build A System • The department chose to create its own solution referred to as the Psychology Department Information System or PDIS. • A contractor was hired to gather requirements and build a web database system. • After 3 years of work the contract ended. • We currently have a fulltime web applications developer on staff.

9. Where Are We Today?

10. Demo • PDIS • Preferred Workload Form • Time Schedule • Annual Report • Teaching Obligation Report

11. Looking Toward The Future • In June 2007 a team (we call ourselves the xDIS team) formed to investigate if modules within PDIS could be adopted centrally and scaled to be provisioned to academic units across UM. • Team members: • John Gohsman, MAIS • Steve Schlecht, Nick Hadwick, the College of LSA, Dean’s Office • Shane Fortune, Business School • Lynn Johnson, School of Dentistry • Nathan Eriksen, School of Information • Jeff Castle, Therese Kummer, Brian Wallace, the Psychology Department • Linda, Randolph, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

12. Looking Toward The Future • The xDIS team is focusing on Faculty HR and Course Planning solution with regard to Undergraduate and Graduate Office Academic Operations

13. Looking Toward The Future • We surveyed the campus community asking how you do business regarding faculty administration and course planning. • We are using the data to help us write a business case for a central solution.

14. The Survey • What tools do you use to manage your course scheduling processes?

15. The Survey • What tools do you use to manage your course scheduling processes? • Vendor Applications: • LSA’s MRS System • File Maker Pro • Ctools • Corel Office Products

16. PDIS Point Of View • Before PDIS: Our time scheduling planning used to be literally thousands of email messages between the Chair, Area Chairs and Administrative Program Coordinators. The negotiations were subject to the most recent email message regarding a particular faculty member or class. • After PDIS: Faculty use the Preferred Work Load tool to tell the department what they want to do. Area Chairs review the information and may do some negotiation. Finalizing the department time schedule has been reduced to half hour meetings with the Chair, administration and Area Chairs.

17. The Survey • What are critical pieces of information that you need for course planning that are not available from central data resources? • Faculty teaching preferences and flexibility • Faculty teaching obligations and buyouts • Faculty availability • Unit curriculum needs • Teaching history and evaluations • Other units’ time schedules • Department focused information

18. PDIS Point Of View • PDIS is a proof of concept that the following information can be accessed and aggregated in one system. • Faculty teaching preferences and flexibility • Faculty teaching obligations and buyouts • Faculty availability • Unit curriculum needs • Teaching history and evaluations • Other units’ time schedules • Department focused information

19. The Survey • What are the critical pieces of faculty information that you maintain locally because it is not available from central data resources and how do you use this information? • Course release, banked courses, and buyout information • Faculty leaves • Teaching load • Teaching history • Room preferences • Course room requirements • Students who need particular courses

20. The Survey • How do you use this missing information to support your faculty management needs? • Hire lectures to fill gaps when faculty are not available • Accommodate faculty requests • Making teaching assignments • To avoid scheduling conflicts • Offer variety in courses and faculty who teach them • Make commitments regarding teaching loads • To know who is teaching • Course planning • Commitment management • Connect appropriate faculty to courses

21. The Survey • How do you manage faculty teaching commitments, banked-time, buyout and sabbaticals for purposes of course planning?

22. Looking Toward The Future • We appreciate your time today and thank you for the opportunity to share what we are doing. • When our project gets off the ground we’ll need your help to create a solution that works best for U-M. • Questions?