Birds of a Feather (BoF) Recordings

Two higher education technical specialists evaluate the deployment of the Ellucian Experience portal to streamline change management and eliminate technical debt ahead of software-as-a-service database migrations. The roundtable contrasts a premium-tier implementation that establishes on-premises card networks to ensure a seamless redirection of web traffic on cloud go-live day against a non-premium foundation-tier rollout designed for immediate, direct replacement of legacy menu paths. To ensure clean user access control across variable student populations, the panelists detail transitioning from rigid identity provider integrations to flexible enterprise resource planning data roles, correcting a critical technical defect where multi-role users faced blank pages upon login. The session highlights crucial business continuity strategies for cloud-based tools, advising institutions to develop time-bound card pinning protocols for heavy registration windows and maintain a fallback address that can be programmatically redirected to an isolated emergency landing page during high-volume system outages. Concluding with product procurement insights, the presenters explain that while imminent legacy platform sunsets frequently force rapid adoptions, utilizing peer-to-peer card repositories and native data connection pipelines enables institutions to successfully navigate complex software life cycles.

Compensation analysts and total rewards managers explore the structural and administrative evolution of higher education salary models designed to adapt to newly mandated pay transparency regulations and public records environments. To systematically eliminate wage compression and internal friction across campus divisions, one institution consolidated multiple disparate pay scales into a single unified twenty-three-band matrix featuring targeted, tenure-based longevity zones that guarantee automatic baseline salary resets to market thresholds at key career benchmarks. The technical panel highlights a hybrid faculty compensation model that averages foundational instructional levels with private-sector industry wages to calculate data-driven salary placements, utilizing a rotating three-year audit schedule to control premium external data expenditures. The speakers outline an integrated performance development architecture that mandates three formal supervisor meetings per fiscal year to combat managerial leniency and establish clear metrics for base-compounding merit milestones. The session concludes with a detailed review of a strict annual order of operations where human resources shifts global band structures first to capture market competition, executes general workforce increases second, computes performance adjustments third, and reconciles localized equity gaps last to protect institutional fiscal boundaries.

An institutional effectiveness strategist describes the technical and administrative evolution of a campus data governance framework designed to build a centralized source of truth. To eliminate conflicting data streams, the institution assigned distinct database domains to specific administrative roles rather than individuals, ensuring continuity during personnel turnovers. The technical architecture transitioned from an ineffective data lake environment to a simplified traditional data warehouse utilizing star schemas and fact tables. To maximize the utility of these structures, the college launched a data literacy workshop series to democratize self-service data access and train staff on federal compliance reporting impact. Comparative analysis of metadata management tools like Data Cookbook and Microsoft Purview helped the team balance robust data dictionary features against institutional implementation limits. As the governance group transitioned from a highly active startup phase into a steady operational state, meeting cadences were scaled back from monthly to quarterly sessions to protect staff bandwidth. Looking ahead, the institution is auditing legacy reports to purge obsolete business rules, clearing a path to seamlessly replicate their successful warehousing schemas into a modern analytical insights engine during an impending software-as-a-service migration.

An educational technology account executive outlines the capabilities of a system-agnostic student portal designed to consolidate fragmented higher education software architectures into a single hub with full web-and-mobile feature parity. To meet modern student expectations for personalized, consumer-grade digital experiences, the platform utilizes proprietary middleware to decouple user interfaces from underlying student information databases, ensuring seamless backend modernizations with zero learner disruption. The presentation covers field successes, showing how one campus integrated dynamic QR code check-in structures to manage mandatory event attendance tracking and mitigate truant student fraud. For institutional staff managing low-visibility department pages, the speaker recommends appending extensive variation strings and abbreviation variables to backend metadata fields to dramatically boost internal search result rankings. The session also explores core document routing tools, evaluating a native form-building utility that works alongside role-based access parameters to push critical compliance paperwork directly onto targeted user navigation menus. While these native forms do not currently read or write database fields via live application programming interfaces, they provide a powerful front-facing index to streamline document completion and drive campus-wide cost consolidation.

An information systems architect and a higher education technology consultant evaluate the transition from legacy Self-Service Banner 8 proxy portals to modern Banner 9 environments, focusing on payment processing mechanics and multi-party application integrations. The discussion addresses the configuration of electronic billing paths, explaining that while baseline payment processors integrate directly out of the box, external vendor packages often require custom implementations using web layout utilities to ensure accurate variable transfers across separate database layers. To minimize duplicate student data configurations, the presenters advise coordinating closely with financial processors to map parallel entry routes for family members already registered in legacy transaction engines. The session highlights how proxy tools differ from legal data disclosures, noting that while automated visibility tools efficiently answer the vast majority of parental inquiries regarding midterm and final grades, they do not automatically grant external users the legal right to act as a student advocate. Concluding with practical implementation advice, the speakers recommend syncing proxy deployment phases with standard institutional software upgrade cycles to maximize technical testing bandwidth, and they offer localized setup scripts to assist peer campuses navigating these security hurdles.

A client success director with extensive experience in higher education details a strategic, human-centric approach to managing complex software-as-a-service migrations. Rather than treating cloud transitions as standard, monolithic technology updates, the framework emphasizes that implementations must be highly individualized to fit a campus’s unique culture and resource constraints. The methodology advocates for extensive pre-work, including thorough business process reviews, data cleanup, and code decustomization, which can compress high-stakes migration runways into an efficient twelve-to-eighteen-month sprint. A central theme is the prioritization of business logic over raw technology, shifting departmental mindsets from a passive reliance on IT to deep ownership of software outcomes. To guarantee long-term operational success, the speaker highlights the critical necessity of multi-party project coordination to eliminate redundant vendor billings, clear tracking of student-centered success metrics, and the formal introduction of campus-wide technology governance. This structured oversight prevents uncoordinated, departmental shadow software purchases from derailing system integrations mid-project. The session concludes by explaining how flexible, value-oriented consulting partnerships and proactive timeline reallocations can effectively shield functional staff from severe burnout during system overhauls.

An associate registrar and an enterprise software lead architect present their successful multi-year implementation of baseline Banner 9 Self-Service Drop Roster functionality to manage a mandatory student no-show policy. By replacing a manual, spreadsheet-heavy workflow with baseline configurations, the institution automated all background registration processing, ensuring that student no-show flags seamlessly cascade to update course history logs, corequisite rule exceptions, financial aid notifications, and accounts receivable records. A vital piece of their technical framework is a nightly optimization script that automatically unchecks self-service visibility parameters to enforce strict policy deadlines across fifteen unique parts of term while safeguarding the institution against financial aid fraud. The presenters highlight a highly customized reporting architecture that outputs five targeted delimited data files to track instructor compliance, identify non-credit outliers, and feed communication loops for dropped students. Emphasizing the value of the broader user community, online help documentation, and targeted configuration guides to overcome initial software defects, the speakers conclude by offering their custom data collection and extraction scripts to peer institutions seeking to mitigate compliance bottlenecks.

An industry technology director provides an exhaustive breakdown of application programming interface frameworks designed to transition higher education database ecosystems into software-as-a-service environments. The session analyzes three core interface types, highlighting how data model systems support real-time publishing patterns, whereas business process systems map directly to administrative pages for broader data coverage without requiring unique global identifiers. The presentation outlines a foundational rule for data compliance in cloud architectures, specifying that information can enter the system through only three distinct channels but can leave via a fourth outbound-only pathway powered by an analytical data warehouse. Attendees are introduced to data access storage lakes that utilize modern query languages to fetch complex records without impacting transactional performance, alongside pipeline designer utilities that automate workflows using file inputs. For institutions managing custom database structures, the discussion highlights automated tools that instantly generate functional application pathways without manual coding, as well as an upcoming visual query builder. The session concludes with a practical migration checklist, urging institutions to catalog existing processes, evaluate vendor monetization structures, and select flexible combinations of cloud-native tools to ensure total system stability during modernizations.

An educational technology specialist outlines an efficient process for managing major Degree Works system upgrades by choosing to skip minor intermediate releases, a strategy that preserves system stability during critical academic periods like graduation and optimizes limited staff resources. Instead of continuous patching, the approach focuses on a deep, biannual review of technical documentation to isolate only new or modified system configurations. These specific variables are then presented to the registrar’s office in a single, targeted working session rather than assigning them thousands of pages of manual reading. To ensure a flawless production launch, a custom database link connects the testing and production environments, allowing automated reverse-verification of all system data and transit jobs before going live. The session also features a live demonstration of the newly deployed Degree Works Transfer Equivalency Self-Service tool. This interface allows prospective students to enter planned start dates, intended majors, and test results, such as Advanced Placement scores, to view automated credit mappings. The specialist explains how configuring a specific underlying report ensures these public transfer audits mirror standard academic layouts, making the resulting data instantly recognizable and easy to digest for both administrative staff and incoming students.

To manage complex pricing, administrators shifted from manual, section-level fee entries to a dynamic, term-based system that automatically applies rules based on student curriculum and course attributes. This framework supports block tuition for full-time enrollment and applies localized premiums for specialized programs, using reverse-charge logic for custom tuition scenarios. By replacing manual calculators with an automated system, the institution ensures precise, real-time tracking of student balances. To guarantee financial accuracy, they implemented a secondary, independent business intelligence tool that daily cross-checks course configurations and validates live system balances. This ensures that any omitted billing tags during scheduling are flagged, preventing potential revenue loss from human error. The system also offers robust audit trails, allowing staff to review balance changes across timestamps and providing transparent fee calculations for students.

In this higher education presentation, the speaker explains how a curriculum shift from subject-driven to flexible, attribute-driven requirements forced their office to implement Degree Works prerequisite checking because Banner Basic cannot handle highly complex or conditional logic. While Degree Works successfully tracks intricate requirements like the multi-layered three-two-one justice theme and specific capstone coursework, it introduces severe database performance issues during peak registration hours. To combat this, the institution utilizes a hybrid model where simple prerequisites remain on secure Banner Basic blocks to handle real registration volume safely, while duplicate rules are scribed into Degree Works to fuel academic advising and future student educational plans. The speaker details operational challenges, including the difficult task of building flexible semester templates for non-prescribed majors, manually synchronizing proxy advice error messages with third-party catalog tools like CourseLeaf CLSS, and the institutional goal of leveraging forecasted plan data to predict course demand. Ultimately, attendees are urged to counsel faculty against overly convoluted prerequisite paths, closely monitor prerequisite process limits up to one hundred allocations, and aggressively test third-party integrations to prevent system crashes while aiming for modern tracking.

This comprehensive overview examines the strategic implementation of the Ellucian Experience portal across multiple higher education campuses. Driven by the decommissioning of legacy systems like Luminous and outdated menu trees, institutions are leveraging this card-based interface as a unified landing pad. The platform features mobile-responsive layouts that eliminate the need for standalone apps by cleanly resizing custom icons and data blocks for mobile devices. To manage the portal without overloading IT queues, central governance is shifting toward functional department managers who can update standard link parameters directly. Furthermore, teams are migrating from identity-provider scripts to native enterprise resource planning roles to optimize audience segmentation. This allows the registrar to broadcast time-sensitive announcements exclusively to specific student groups while keeping the main home screen clear of clutter through tabbed layouts and seasonal card pinning. To minimize deployment risks, early adopters recommend running parallel environments during low-traffic periods. This strategy provides an administrative fallback, as high-volume traffic during the first week of classes has historically triggered major cloud platform outages. The transition concludes with a collaborative peer-to-peer ecosystem on GitHub, where developers share open-source card configurations to eliminate redundant development cycles campus-wide.

This higher education briefing details the project structures, consultant collaboration models, and administrative staff workflows required to complete a transition to the Ellucian Banner SaaS platform. The speaker outlines a governance framework that utilizes dedicated functional and technical solution architects to guide campus departments through continuous monthly change management reviews. Unlike traditional software implementations that demand full-time staff backfill, the operational burden on university personnel is minimized because Ellucian consultants execute all backend system configuration adjustments. Campus staff maintain their standard daily responsibilities while participating in alternating call schedules to provide institutional input. Operationally, users do not need to learn a new corporate vocabulary or navigation path since core baseline pages remain completely intact. The functional discovery phase uses automated checklist sprints and progressive user acceptance testing to validate multiple cloud data conversions smoothly. Tech teams are advised to audit all historical system modifications against native cloud features before migrating any legacy code, allowing institutions to permanently retire obsolete custom extensions. The technical lifecycle concludes by executing targeted data integration surveys to clean up application overlap across reporting, scheduling, and payment processing blocks before launching the live production cloud environment.

The software streamlines multi-party processing by allowing students to complete dynamic form fields before automatically locking the document down and routing authenticated sign-off pages to external constituents like parents or job candidates via social logins or Gmail. Softdocs expands student communication options by integrating directly with existing campus texting platforms and automated email notifications to keep applicants engaged in real time. For specialized departments like Human Resources, conditional logic consolidates separate personnel processes into single dynamic forms, triggering automated workflow notifications to payroll and IT for device procurement immediately upon a new hire’s submission. Within institutional advancement, the interface handles donor fundraising, grants, proposals, and gift-giving tracking to increase constituent investment. Finally, a dedicated document retention module automates institutional lifecycle purge cycles, such as seven-year compliance timelines, while providing an override feature to place legal holds on individual files during active campus audits.

/htm

This comprehensive overview outlines the technical data-sharing workflow between campus registrars, the National Student Clearinghouse, and the NSLDS. It provides actionable solutions for managing complex processing timelines and correcting common enrollment reporting errors:

• Roster Synchronization Lifecycle: The Clearinghouse processes official monthly NSLDS rosters alongside a custom “supplemental ads” file to capture overlooked students. When an institution processes data outside standard cycles, the Clearinghouse initiates an automated “mid-month roster” to prevent costly submission gaps.
• Targeted SSCR Error Resolution: The documentation details distinct correction paths for the most common system conflicts. Administrators are instructed to focus exclusively on the current monthly report, as past logs do not require back-correction. Error 22 (Student Not Found) requires auditing registration rejects, while Error 32 (Certification Date Mismatch) requires prioritizing Clearinghouse database updates over direct NSLDS entry. Error 38 (Certification Date Too Old) self-resolves for separation statuses dated from 2004 onward, but older active entries require manual updates.
• Compliance Best Practices: Financial aid and registrar offices must collaborate closely to submit clean enrollment files every 30 to 45 days. Compliance managers should monitor the graduation-specific “G from Degree” portal to ensure consistent tracking across both campus and program levels.

Ellucian Services Representative Christina Baxter detailed the company’s transition to a unified “Premium Support” framework. This all-in-one model consolidates disparate self-help resources, action-line cases, and long-term advisory services into a singular, streamlined package managed by a dedicated Customer Success Manager (CSM). The program accelerates time-to-resolution by removing traditional work-order barriers and offering prioritized case handling across vital modules like Finance, HR, Financial Aid, and Student Accounts.

Key features include a tiered structure tailored to institutional needs and an integrated “Success Catalog” featuring 150 standardized half-day consulting courses. Additionally, a new “phone a friend” feature addresses the “donut hole” gap between standard break-fix support tickets and large-scale professional implementations. This option provides quick, direct hours with capability success consultants for strategic planning and feature training. The model has already yielded high Net Promoter Scores (NPS) among early Banner SAS adopters, and Ellucian plans to expand it to Colleague SAS and on-premise clients. The session concluded with a discussion on retiring old campus system customizations via integration tools like Ethos to ease future transitions.

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.