Attendees:

Christi Bengard (SC), Jim Dolgonas (OP), Chester Ferguson (BK), Kathy Keller (OP), Debbie Lauriano (DV), Trish Lyons (RV), Ed Martinek (SF), Bob Merryman (SD), Benny Min (OP), Caroline Rider (IR), Richard Tamm (BK), Vance Vaughan (BK/OP), Don Worth (LA), Jerry Wilcox (OP)

• employee (faculty and staff) data (phase 1A) will be processed before student data (phase 1B)
• only data for the 9 UC campuses and OP will be included initially, i.e., no lab data

• overall system data flow (see below) was reviewed and accepted
• a timeline mapping out the various planned processes should be developed/reviewed

• what should be the process for generating university-wide Net IDs? In favor of campus generation: improved data quality as fewer cases of multiple Net IDs generated for the same individual would be anticipated, given campuses' greater access to campus data for resolution of conflicts; in favor of OP generation: increased initial campus responsibilities would likely delay project schedule because they will not all have resources to devote at the same time
• process will be required to track/record old and new Net IDs at the individual record level to facilitate data record history/reconciliation for Net ID corrections
• reconciliation algorithms, rules, procedures to review and process potential and actual cases of multiple Net IDs for the same individual must be developed

• employee self-service (ESS) application update process should be heavily scrutinized before determining which fields will be allowed to be updated, especially in light of the ramifications of what will be passed on their corresponding interface back to campus-run systems such as Payroll, e.g., Employee Name, Department Name, Alternate Address fields
• supplementing daily payroll and student interface processes, a daily "directory" interface process may be required, depending upon where address information is stored on campuses

• what, if any, data should be stored in mixed case as opposed to only upper case

• multiple values per individual for at least the following data elements should be maintained:
• Name
• Non-Email Address
• Email Address
• Phone Number
• the Country data element should utilize the current 2 character Dept of Commerce code
• work address should use the IFIP address standard
• 9 digit zip code formats should be utilized; it was noted that these could be centrally updated ("+4 zips"); only the 5 digit zip code component, however, would likely be passed to Payroll
• employee name should be housed as a different name value than one-to-many student names

• distribute meeting notes to meeting participants
• distribute ESTF Report (including ESTF Report Summary) url to meeting participants
• distribute updated draft data elements to meeting participants
• distribute draft specifications for Payroll, Student, and "Directory" systems

note: though the next meeting date is currently unscheduled, on-going discussions with the meeting participants should still continue, including the dissemination and review of documents

Overall System Data Flow:

Return to Meeting Agendas & Minutes Page