Review and discuss the revised DW Advisory Group committee description for the Chancellor’s Office Participatory Governance Handbook

• Denice walked the DW Advisory Group through the revised draft of the participatory agreement which has been updated to identify the current participants. 

• Steve Klein identified that the list was incomplete and did not include all members invited to be a part of the DW Advisory Group.  There was also a discussion on whether the current members represent the diversity of CCC’s, large/small, urban/rural, North/South, etc.   Mark Cohen shared a spreadsheet containing the full list of individuals identified by the RP Group to participate in this group with classification of the college or district that they represent. This list was shared with Denice Inciong. 

• Virginia Moran identified that she does not see small colleges represented and they may have unique needs in relation to the Data Warehouse. 

• Denice discussed the need to next update the goals for the group which will be discussed in the next meeting so that we may best leverage the strengths of this group in supporting the Data Warehouse. 

Review the results of the DW Survey

• Mark Cohen walked the group through the preliminary summary of results of the recent DW survey. This presentation is available at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-_4_dGL5uEFHl-gLV8D7-dSTBVvBn0zKgnvwlRIbjZ4/edit?usp=sharing

• The group noted that the responses to the survey were good given the total population of colleges and districts. 

• Alyssa Nguyen pointed out that in the preliminary findings there appears to be interest in having data on demand data in the DW with CCC apply data all in one place so that it is more readily and easily accessible; and that these findings may suggest solutions for improved workflows vs. yet another dashboard/warehouse?

• In discussing the question about the use of a local Data Warehouse, Elaine Kuo pointed out that colleges and districts may have different definitions of a “data warehouse” and that not all colleges and districts that responded as having a local data warehouse necessarily have a data warehouse as others define it, or that it may not be organized to capture data elements that may be assumed to be present. Elaine Kuo noted that just because a college or district has a local DW, it does not necessarily mean that it is supported appropriately or is effective in its goal or intent.

• Virginia Moran said that while the DW is solving issues that they have, there are questions around certain metrics and that a translation piece is needed to provide these definitions.  Elaine Kuo spoke of an opportunity for professional development to bring together colleges/districts for some standardization/definitions; noting that we tend to have such conversations locally but in within individual colleges/districts. Denice noted that even if bringing in data from Launchboard, these data are derived from multiple places. 

• Z. Reisz said that he wants to see Data-on-Demand in the DW and that Internet Explorer is needed to interact with Data-on-Demand. 

• Dulce Delgadillo said that from a noncredit perspective, while the district may have a local DW it does not contain the non-credit data and that non credit data is not in banner and is contained across multiple systems.

• Mark summarized the three immediate takeaways: 

  • The high number of local data warehouses suggests designing more advanced levels of integrations between the CCC DW and college and district data warehouses.

  • Work with Chancellor's Office to support access to data sets identified by college and districts.

  • Work with Chancellor's Office to develop communications and training support for the CCC DW

• Z. Resiz asked about the full survey summary from SurveyMonkey. After the meeting this was sent out to the DW Advisory Group listserv. 

Data Warehouse development update

• Mark provided a update of the development efforts for the CCC Data 2.2 release, which is expected to go to pilot in February. In January the Tech Center will be reaching out to colleges and districts about participating in user acceptance testing. 

• The group chose to cancel the January meeting and return in February. As the scheduled February meeting was to fall on Presidents Day, the meeting was rescheduled to February 14.

Chat Room Transcript

Alyssa Nguyen to Everyone (10:30 AM)

Most colleges IT departments would likely express security concerns about connecting the data

bidirectional data share

Z Reisz (he/him) to Everyone (10:33 AM)

Good point, what is the one person IR office perspective?

Alyssa Nguyen to Everyone (10:36 AM)

From the preliminary findings -- there appear to be interest in having data on demand data in the DW and CCC apply data all in one place to more readily and easily access?

Virginia Moran to Everyone (10:36 AM)

@Alyssa, yes!!

Alyssa Nguyen to Everyone (10:36 AM)

the findings suggest solutions for improved workflows

vs. yet another dashboard/warehouse?

...improvements to local college workflows

Elaine Kuo to Everyone (10:40 AM)

Seems like there is room for PD bringing together colleges/districts for some standardization/definitions

We tend to have such conversations locally but in the cone of silence of our own colleges/districts.

Alyssa Nguyen to Everyone (10:48 AM)

thank you both for the additional context

Elaine Kuo to Everyone (10:49 AM)

Just because college/district has a local DW, does not necessarily mean it is supported appropriately or is effective in its goal/intent.

Dulce Delgadillo (She, Her, Ella) to Everyone (10:51 AM)

Yes, Elaine, that is definitely the case for our institution/district, where our district has a DW, but it is not useful for our particular institution since it doesn't house our data

Alyssa Nguyen to Everyone (10:53 AM)

happy winter holidays everyone!

Elaine Kuo to Everyone (10:53 AM)

Enjoy what's left of 2021!

Dulce Delgadillo (She, Her, Ella) to Everyone (10:54 AM)

Have a great break everyone and Happy Holidays and New Year!

Dustin Tamashiro to Everyone (10:54 AM)

happy holidays everyone!

Date Issue/Question Raised:

Date Resolved/Answered:

Owner:

Date Issue/Question Raised:

Date Resolved/Answered:

Owner:

Date Issue/Question Raised:

Date Resolved/Answered:

Owner:

Date Issue/Question Raised:

Date Resolved/Answered:

Owner:

1. Update Goals for the group

CCCCO (to be discussed at next meeting) 

2. Share survey summary results with the DWAG –

CCCCTC (Completed)

3. Get final input on DWAG Participatory Governance blurb

CCCCO (to complete the draft of the Advisory Group description for the CCCCO Participatory Governance Handbook)

4. Determine how to ensure small colleges are represented 

CCCCO/CCCTC  (confirm membership to include additional colleges. Work with RP Group to identify additional colleges as necessary) 

5. Define ‘data warehouse’ more explicitly

CCCTC (In survey summary, describe differences between local and systemwide data warehouses) 

6. Follow-up with MIS to understand interoperability of DoD and Internet Explorer

CCCCO (to pursue browser compatibility of DoD)