Birds of a Feather (BoF) Recordings

This Birds of a Feather session explored how St. Ben’s and St. John’s replaced a labor‑intensive, error‑prone spreadsheet scheduling process with CourseLeaf CLSS, transforming both workflow and culture. Academic Affairs and the Registrar’s Office described the old model—40+ hours of department meetings, macros‑heavy spreadsheets everyone still managed to break, inconsistent data entry, unclear communication, and constant cleanup. CLSS introduced structured design phases, automated rule enforcement, workflow approvals, and visibility into historical offerings, enrollment patterns, room capacities, and cross‑department conflicts. Departments now build schedules collaboratively, see real‑time impacts of their choices, and receive immediate feedback when proposals violate policies such as prime‑time limits, meeting‑pattern rules, or room‑capacity constraints.

The presenters emphasized how CLSS supports student‑centric scheduling by enabling heat‑map analysis, attribute‑based filtering, and forecasting of high‑demand times. They also discussed new processes for summer scheduling, reserve seats, final‑exam room assignments, and the shift to publishing a full‑year schedule at once. Integration with Banner and EMS streamlined room management but also surfaced unexpected issues—such as Canvas briefly breaking when final‑exam meeting patterns were added. The team shared lessons learned, including avoiding section‑copying pitfalls, using “faux roll” term imports, and building rules that balance flexibility with institutional policy. Overall, the implementation strengthened governance, improved accuracy, and reduced friction across departments while setting the stage for more data‑informed scheduling in future cycles.

This Financial Aid BOF session gathered staff from multiple institutions to compare hands‑on practices across scholarships, VA benefits, state grants, automation, and emerging AI tools. Schools described highly manual scholarship processes—often built around Google Forms, spreadsheets, and committee scoring—and shared experiences with products like Scholarship Magic and Scholarship Universe. Participants compared how they manage complex scholarship criteria, multi‑semester disbursements, and the challenges of integrating external tools with Banner.

A major discussion centered on VA benefits: how institutions enter Chapter 33, 35, and 1606 benefits in Banner’s resource screen, how zero‑amount entries affect RAP Award visibility, and how to avoid under‑awarding while still meeting College Financing Plan requirements. State‑grant packaging issues—especially unit limits, spring‑term eligibility, and mismatches between state data and Banner’s logic—prompted talk of manual popsels, custom modules, and the need for future upgrades.

Schools also compared timelines for opening self‑service to prospective students, especially as admissions offices transition to Slate. Automation tools like UC4/Automic are increasingly used for scheduled Banner processes, BDM imports, and batch posting, though many institutions still rely on manual steps or IT‑built insert scripts. AI tools such as Copilot are newly deployed on many campuses, prompting both excitement and caution as staff explore email drafting, coding assistance, and future Banner SaaS integrations. Overall, the group emphasized modernization, cross‑department collaboration, and the ongoing balance between automation and institutional control.

This Birds of a Feather session gathered technical teams from multiple institutions to discuss the evolving Banner ecosystem, SAS readiness, and the realities of modernizing long‑standing ERP environments. Schools shared their progress implementing Ethos APIs, event processors, and Experience development—some building custom cards for student employment, verification, and workflow replacement, while others struggled with training delays, SAML/CAS transitions, and maintaining stable non‑production environments. Several institutions described mixed experiences with ILP, iPaaS tools, and integrations with systems like ADP and TeamDynamix, noting that data quality and HR complexity often slow modernization efforts.

A major theme was the retirement of Self‑Service 8 and the uneven transition to Self‑Service 9. Participants compared strategies for decommissioning SSB8, handling faculty and advisor dissatisfaction, customizing landing pages, and navigating the new four‑square menu structure. Proxy 9 generated lively discussion—especially around MFA requirements, parent confusion, lingering dependencies on Banner 8 packages, and the need for clearer redirect behavior after timeouts.

Institutions also reflected on ERP futures: evaluating Workday, Oracle Cloud, or Ellucian SaaS; concerns about performance in hosted demos; and the importance of rethinking data retention before migrating decades of Banner history. The session closed with questions about data warehouses, longitudinal reporting, and how tools like Power BI Fabric or Ellucian Insights might (or might not) meet long‑term analytical needs.

This HR/Payroll/Finance Birds of a Feather session brought together institutions navigating Banner, student‑employment processes, payroll complexities, and potential transitions to Banner SaaS or competing ERP platforms. After introductions, the group compared recruiting systems such as NeoEd and , noting integration gaps that force manual data entry and duplicate onboarding steps. Student‑employment workflows were a major theme: institutions described manual job setups, custom SSB bolt‑ons, mail‑merge wage notices, and challenges ensuring managers and students complete required steps on time. International‑student onboarding, I‑9 delays, and wage‑notice compliance added further complexity.

Payroll teams discussed overtime calculations, blended rates, shift differentials, and the limitations of Banner’s native tools—often requiring manual review or external time‑clock systems like TimeClock Plus. Several institutions are evaluating Banner SaaS, weighing cosmetic improvements, workflow enhancements, and reporting upgrades against concerns about support quality and the effort required to clean up decades of data. Data governance emerged as a shared priority, including retention policies, data‑lake initiatives, and reducing unnecessary employee classes. The session closed with discussion on adjunct and student lifecycle management, automation of terminations, and the broader cultural shift toward empowering employees through self‑service while maintaining strong security controls.

This Birds of a Feather session brought together business analysts, developers, IT teams, and data professionals from multiple institutions to discuss the challenges and opportunities emerging as campuses move toward Banner SaaS and modern reporting ecosystems. Much of the conversation centered on Ellucian Insights, including its Postgres‑based data platform, refresh cycles, and the balance between wizard‑driven report creation and full SQL editing. Institutions emphasized the importance of completing a detailed report inventory before migration—identifying owners, usage patterns, and whether custom SQL can be replaced with baseline functionality.

Moraine Park Technical College shared updates from their early SAS implementation, including training experiences, the role of Data Connect for integrating third‑party systems or feeding Power BI, and the shift away from on‑prem databases. Participants discussed schema extensibility for custom tables and supplemental data fields, as well as the complexity of Insights security and the need for granular role configuration.

The group also explored broader reporting‑ecosystem decisions: when to use Insights versus Power BI or Argos, how to consolidate tool stacks, and how to empower power users to modify reports without IT intervention. Cloud strategy surfaced as a major theme, with institutions weighing the cost and flexibility of cloud environments against the simplicity of maintaining some on‑prem capacity. Data governance tools such as Data Galaxy and OpenMetadata were also discussed as institutions work to catalog data elements, improve clarity, and strengthen security. Across the board, participants shared a common trajectory toward modernized reporting, stronger governance, and more integrated analytics environments.

HR/Payroll/Finance BOF Session

This Birds of a Feather session gathered reporting, analytics, IT, IR, advancement, and security professionals from numerous institutions—many Banner and Cognos schools—who are actively modernizing their reporting ecosystems while preparing for major platform transitions such as Banner SaaS, Workday, Salesforce, Slate, and Raiser’s Edge. After introductions, the group explored shared challenges: migrating legacy Cognos reports, managing custom Banner tables, and supporting users accustomed to Excel-style data dumps rather than interactive dashboards.

St. Thomas described extensive use of Oracle Apex as a flexible staging and application layer for advancement workflows, especially gift processing, though participants noted Apex disappears in Banner SaaS, requiring redevelopment. Others discussed JasperReports, Argos, and the growing appeal of Power BI and Microsoft Fabric. Institutions using Power BI shared training strategies—primarily self‑guided learning through YouTube, Udemy courses, and experimentation—and emphasized the importance of building a few “wow” dashboards to shift user culture toward interactive analytics.

Several attendees shared updates from Ellucian Live, including Insights’ planned near–real‑time refresh cycles, unlimited licensing, and AI‑assisted report generation. However, institutions expressed caution: Insights remains a work in progress, and AI features—especially agentic workflows that could trigger Banner processes—raise significant security and governance concerns. Participants questioned how much data AI models truly access, how anonymization can fail, and how contractual assurances may not fully protect institutions. Security officers highlighted the need for rigorous risk analysis, permission scoping, and integrating AI considerations into existing data‑classification policies rather than creating standalone AI policies.

The conversation closed with a discussion on data governance beyond spreadsheets. Institutions are beginning to evaluate automated lineage tools, assess what data resides in systems like Canvas, and consider purging or restructuring long‑retained information to reduce exposure. Despite varied tools and timelines, participants shared a common trajectory: moving toward cloud ecosystems, strengthening governance, modernizing reporting, and preparing for an AI‑augmented future that demands both innovation and caution.

Institutions compared their current versions—ranging from 5.0.7 to 5.1.5—and discussed upgrade strategies. Some followed annual summer upgrade cycles, while others adopted ad‑hoc approaches depending on stability, staffing, or the availability of service pack 2, which several attendees preferred to avoid early bugs. A few schools noted delays due to IT transitions or resource constraints.

Conversation shifted to technical challenges, including the shift in newer versions to storing error logs inside the database rather than in external files, complicating automated parsing. Participants compared how often they run audits, with some generating nightly updates and others relying on on‑demand refreshes. Most reported relatively few audit errors.

A major solved issue involved a stubborn major (MSQM) appearing in What‑If audits despite configuration changes. After extensive troubleshooting and vendor communication, the root cause was traced to the CAP (Curriculum Advising and Program Planning) indicator, which needed to be unchecked to prevent outdated programs from appearing.

Planner usage varied widely. Some institutions used it extensively, auto‑assigning plans to all students and monitoring on/off‑track status, even using plans to forecast course demand. Others used it minimally or not at all. This led to discussion of orphaned plans, data validation, and integrating Degree Works data with Banner or external reporting tools.

Participants also discussed enrollment forecasting, with one institution using Degree Works scribe blocks and SQL to estimate unmet general education requirements and plan future course sections. This led to broader conversation about scheduling tools such as CourseLeaf and CourseDog, their capabilities, and the gap between polished demos and real‑world data complexity.

Additional topics included prerequisite enforcement using admit‑term logic, reducing excessive block structures, managing minors, and handling edge cases in Banner extract configurations—especially when outdated certificates resurfaced after outcome rollovers.

The group’s conversation centered on comparing institutional practices around Banner functionality, academic operations, and emerging technologies. Participants discussed approaches to collecting graduation information, managing variable‑credit courses, and handling study‑abroad registrations—ranging from multi‑step surveys and phonetic name collection to the use of placeholder credits for financial‑aid compliance. They also explored how institutions structure noncredit terms, the challenges of using Banner’s degree application, and the complexities of waitlists, reserved seats, and course‑level configurations for internships, labs, and co‑requisites.

A major theme was the adoption and evaluation of new systems. One institution shared detailed insights from its Banner SaaS re‑implementation, including the multi‑year timeline, the need to replace supplemental data fields, and the extensive work required to migrate Argos reports and customizations. Others discussed their experiences with CourseLeaf CAT and CLASS, highlighting improvements in catalog accuracy, workflow transparency, distributed scheduling, and the cleanup of outdated courses. Several institutions also compared EMS and 25Live for room scheduling, noting EMS’s quirks, recent sync issues, and the varying degrees to which optimization and API‑based room‑seeking features were used.

The group also touched on additional tools such as Scholarship Universe, Embers, and Aadium, sharing early impressions and implementation plans. Throughout the discussion, participants emphasized the value of cross‑institution collaboration—both for troubleshooting Banner behavior and for evaluating new technologies. The meeting closed with appreciation for the shared insights and a reminder that ongoing conversations could continue through the Ellucian community forums.

This session compared strategies for handling the upcoming Minnesota PFML program, including whether to use the state plan or third‑party administrators and how to manage payroll deductions, supplemental pay, and Banner configuration. Institutions share experiences with benefits‑administration platforms like bswift, ATS integrations such as iCIMS‑to‑Banner with AppWorks scripting, and the challenges of automating deduction files, effective‑date stacking, and new‑hire onboarding. Participants highlight Banner’s limitations—especially in benefits enrollment, EPAF workflows, and FLAC faculty‑contract processing—leading some to rely on external ticketing systems or custom processes. The group also discusses defects in the W‑2 electronic file layout, difficulties with CRM Advance payroll integration, and the steep learning curve of Cognos reporting. Staffing levels, reporting structures, and potential use of NBP Mass for bulk supervisor updates round out the conversation, with institutions sharing lessons learned and plans to reconnect as they continue modernizing HR and payroll operations.

The full discussion spans a wide range of operational pain points facing financial‑aid offices during the 2024–25 and 2025–26 cycles. Schools describe persistent problems with TD Client failing to retrieve ISIRs despite files appearing in EdConnect, certificate‑update complications, and the need for IT collaboration to resolve password and mailbox‑authentication issues. Several institutions report delays in state funding parameters, mismatches between estimated and actual awards, and the impact of Minnesota’s two‑year funding model on projections.

We compared strategies for automating “year in college” updates to prevent award/reject errors, reduce manual unlocking/locking of records, and streamline processing as new ISIRs arrive. Looking ahead to 2025–26, participants outline spreadsheet‑driven approaches for mass‑creating term dates, disbursement schedules, and fund setups—while noting dependencies on academic calendars, state budgets, and new fund codes.

A major thread centers on verification: schools are receiving AHSi files that don’t align with ISIR V4/V5 flags, prompting some to manually assign V4 codes or create internal tracking groups to ensure identity‑verification documents are requested. Suspense records, missing admissions records, and inconsistent ED guidance complicate the process. Participants also discuss the confusing contributor‑related comment codes in early ISIRs, which often provided no actionable detail; many institutions created generic “check everything” instruction sheets and internal triage codes to push records toward resolution.

Throughout the conversation, attendees express frustration with the lack of timely federal communication, relying instead on community channels like FOLs, Slack, and Facebook groups for real‑time updates. The session closes with shared acknowledgment of the unpredictable environment and the need for constant rule‑building, monitoring, and creative workarounds to keep aid processing functional.

The conversation brought together technical and functional staff from multiple institutions to compare approaches to ERP governance, reporting, CRM/advancement tools, and IT operations. Participants shared experiences with CRM Advance, Raiser’s Edge, and Blackbaud performance tools, including questions about rating data and integration. A major thread focused on asset‑management practices: some institutions rely on custom SQL/Node applications, while others use Jira Service Management, TeamDynamix, Snipe‑IT, or low‑code platforms like Power Apps or Airtable. The group discussed sustainability concerns around custom development, the need for decision frameworks to choose platform vs. custom solutions, and the risks of developer dependency.

Reporting strategy was another major theme. Institutions described mixed ecosystems involving Argos, Cognos, Banner custom reports, and Power BI, with some planning to retire Cognos due to licensing costs. They noted underused Argos capabilities—such as automated emails, scheduled workflows, and dashboards—and the difficulty of managing hundreds of legacy reports with unclear ownership. Several institutions are building centralized report libraries and auditing report usage to reduce duplication and improve governance.

The group also compared Banner user‑group structures and change‑control processes. Some institutions run quarterly cross‑department meetings featuring demos, release updates, testing schedules, and departmental reports. These groups help align HR, Registrar, Finance, and IT teams, reduce communication gaps, and ensure consistent adoption of ERP features. Participants emphasized the value of demos, structured communication, and shared governance—especially as institutions prepare for SaaS migrations, modernization projects, and ongoing ERP lifecycle changes.