Data Warehouse Expansion Project

Transcription

1 Data Warehouse Expansion Project Project Overview Spring 2017 LEARN. DO. LIVE

2 Purpose The purpose. Expand the reporting capabilities of the data warehouse by providing dynamic dashboards, self-service analytics, and new data marts.

3 Objectives How? Design relevant dynamic dashboards and self-service analytics populated by functional data marts: 1. To validate the current environment and ensure best practice, an initial assessment will be performed by an expert consultant. 2. Utilize an expansion team to define the scope of the project (e.g., the number of dashboards with which to go-live). 3. Meet with key stakeholders to discuss institutional goals and how best how to measure them (e.g., RCM, enrollment, accreditation, and time-to-degree). 4. Discover, define, extract,and load data so as to create a data schema (skeleton structure that defines data organization, relations, and constraints). 5. Apply best practice data visualization design to measurements in an online userinterface such as dashboards.

4 SWOT Analysis Strengths Operational data warehouse Successful tools for Federal/State reporting Existing Data Warehouse Dedicated staff Weaknesses Ambiguous Roadmap Relevant Dynamic Dashboards Self-Service Reporting Threats Competing priorities Undefined Roles and Responsibilities Opportunities New staff/administration since initial 2014 project Continuous Service Improvement Partnerships Implement an Enterprise Data Management Model 2011 creation of IE

5 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) When and why was IE established? NWCCU September 2011 Self-Study Report Recommendation 3. The Evaluation Committee recommends that Central Washington University enhance its overall capacity for institutional research to define and analyze data in a consistent and systematic manner for sharing with all its constituencies in order to support effective and timely decision making (Standard 6.C.7).

6 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Response to NWCCU recommendations: Institutional Effectiveness: A new institutional effectiveness unit has been created to lead the university in the integration of planning, evaluation and budgeting; provide greater transparency in planning and research; ensure the development of benchmarks for all divisions; and assist in the development of business plans.

7 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011)

8 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) 16 member task force -- representing all divisions was directed to submit a written report containing recommendations to resolve reporting situation on campus. Responsible for providing comprehensive inventory of key trends and performance indicators. These trends would serve as regular summary reporting in a dashboard format while being monitored frequently in greater detail. A web-based management information system that provides selfservice reporting access both to the President s Cabinet and to a wider audience.

9 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011)

10 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Of the master list of 643 reporting options of key trends and performance indicators, 26 reporting options were decided upon for regular reporting to the President s Cabinet.

11 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Preference given to trends that aligned with: The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). (NACUBO definitions and standards for financial reporting measures are adopted in IPEDS.) The Common Data Set Initiative. The National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity managed by the University of Delaware. (This study provides discipline-specific benchmarks, not just on instructional activity, but also on sponsored research and public service.) The Public Centralized Higher Education Enrollment System (PCHEES) managed by the State of Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM). The Complete to Compete accountability measures developed by the National Governor s Association. (These measures were recommended by the State of Washington Task Force on Higher Education; and Governor Gregoire s budget bill directs OFM to evaluate the performance of CWU and the other Washington public higher education institutions by these measures when making higher education appropriation recommendations.) The Accountability Framework Report on Higher Education provided to the Washington State Legislature by the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB).

12 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Why was preference given? Nationally recognized affiliations adhere and calculate numbers using the same data definitions. Work smarter, not harder.

13 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) 8 Regularly Reported Top Trends HR Finance Student Completed Outstanding

14 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Human Resource Reporting Trends (completed): Number of full-time equivalent employees per quarter and year span 5 years, disaggregated by employee type (faculty, classified, exempt, etc)

15 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Human Resource Reporting Trends (outstanding): Number of Full-Time equivalent students taught per full-time equivalent instructional faculty member per quarter. 5 year span, disaggregated by college and department. Number of Full-Time equivalent students taught per full-time equivalent instructional faculty member per quarter. 5 year span, disaggregated by instructional delivery sight. Number of majors/minors per full-time equivalent instructional faculty member 5 year span, disaggregated by college, department Number of degrees awarded per full-time equivalent instructional faculty member per quarter 5 year span, disaggregated by college, department Number of searches, hires, retirements and separations 5 year span, disaggregated by employee type Number of full-time equivalent faculty per quarter 5 year span, disaggregated by faculty activity Average faculty salary per year span 5 years, disaggregated by rank

16 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Financial Reporting Trends (outstanding): Total Revenues minus expenses per quarter 5 year span, disaggregated by revenue (149 vs 148) Core Revenues per quarter 5 year span, disaggregated by revenue source Core Expenses per quarter and year 5 year span, disaggregated by function Average cost of attendance, average financial need, average aid awarded - 5 year span Total Financial Aid awarded per quarter and year 5 year span, disaggregated by aid type Revenue from instruction, minus instructional expense per full-time equivalent student 5 year span, disaggregated by college/dept Revenue from instruction, minus instructional expense per full-time equivalent student 5 year span, disaggregated by instructional delivery site

17 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Student Data Reporting Trends (completed): Number of applicants, admits, confirmed admits, and newly-enrolled students per quarter 5 year span Total number of enrolled students and FTE per quarter 5 year span Number of enrolled students per quarter 5 year span, disaggregated by enrollment site Number of enrolled students per quarter 5 year span, disaggregated by admissions type Number of enrolled students per quarter 5 year span, disaggregated by geographic origin

18 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Student Data Reporting Trends (outstanding): 1 & 2 year retention rates for full-time baccalaureate students 5 year span, disaggregated by admissions type Number and percentage of baccalaureate students enrolled in remedial math and English courses 5 year span, disaggregated by course subject. Average cumulative GPA for baccalaureate students per quarter/year. 4, 5, & 6 year graduation rates for full-time, first-time baccalaureate students per year span 5 years

19 Task Force on Trend Reporting (2011) Non-PeopleSoft Data: Number and Percentage of Students Cited for Conduct Violations per Quarter and Year over 5 Years, disaggregated by Type of Violation (e.g., Drugs, Alcohol, Noise).

20 Project Team Members

21 Project Team Members

22 Project Team Members

23 Development Life Cycle of BI CWU Data Warehouse

24 Development Life Cycle of BI CWU Data Warehouse

25 Development Life Cycle of BI CWU Data Warehouse CIS DW Dimensions (Type 1 and Type 2), Facts, Cubes and Views a. HR i. 10 Dimensions ii. 2 Facts iii. 2 Cubes b. Student i. 84 Dimensions ii. 12 Facts iii. 29 Cubes c. External Reporting i. PCHEES ii. AAUP iii. CDMS/PESB iv. CDS Common Data Set v. ERMS vi. IPEDS vii. LiveText viii.wsac Unit Record Report (In development) d. Views

26 Development Life Cycle of BI CWU Data Warehouse

27 Development Life Cycle of BI CWU Data Warehouse Evolvement Project Areas of Opportunity Financials General Ledger Accounts Payable Accounts Receivable Grants HCM Compensation Learning and Development Recruiting Workforce Profile

28 Data Warehouse Evolvement Where do we go from here? 1. Commence DW Evolve Project 2. Baseline Assessment of existing 3. Re-introduce 2011 trends 4. Other relevant reports (nvision, RCM) 5. Continuous Improvement 5. Gather Requirements and Build

29 Project Schedule One Year Task/Deliverable Initiating Planning Executing Preliminary Project Plan Professional Assessment of existing Data Warehouse KPIs/Preliminary Dashboard Requirements Apr 17 X May Sept 17 X Sept Nov 17 X Monitoring/ Controlling Nov 17 Feb 18 Monitoring/ Controlling Closing Mar 18 Apr 18 Data Architecture Design Requirements (ETL) Preliminary Self-Service Analytics Requirements Detailed Project Plan Initial Requirement Approvals Change Control & Migration Plan X X X X X Development/Testing Commences X Dashboard /Report Design QA Testing by Stakeholder Final Sign-off by Stakeholder Data Dictionary Updates (ongoing) X X X X X End User Training Plan X X Change Management X X X X X X Go Live X

30 Critical Success Factors Internal Critical Success Factors for Team: Team Participation Accountability Communication Closed loop feedback with stakeholders Executive Sponsorship Anything Else?

31 Critical Success Factors Critical Success Factors for Project: Achievable goals Milestones being met Change request process followed Stakeholder Involvement Data Dictionary Adherence to development lifecycle Education on PeopleSoft vs. Warehouse Executive Sponsorship Continual Service Improvement

32 Continual Service Improvement

33 Development Life Cycle of BI

34 Key Stakeholders and Governance Key Stakeholders and Governance Name Title Andreas Bohman Chief Information Officer Bernadette Jungblut Joel Klucking Joseph Han Staci Sleigh-Layman Associate Provost for Accreditation and Planning Vice President of Business and Financial Affairs Vice President of Operations Executive Sponsor Executive Director of Human Resources

35 Timeline

36