Birds of a Feather (BoF) Recordings

This session compared technical practices across institutions using Banner and related academic systems, covering graduation data collection, variable‑credit handling, study‑abroad placeholders, waitlists, reserved seats, and section linking. They also discussed experiences with CourseLeaf CAT/CLASS, EMS room‑scheduling quirks, distributed scheduling, and integrations between systems. Several institutions shared insights on migrating from Banner on‑prem to Banner SaaS, including reporting changes, supplemental data challenges, and process standardization. Additional tools mentioned included transfer‑evaluation platforms, course‑sharing systems, and financial‑aid solutions like Scholarship Universe and Embers.

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.

The full discussion covers a wide range of Banner‑ecosystem operational topics shared across several higher‑education institutions. Participants begin with updates from Ellucian Live, including the major shift toward an effective‑dated repeating PML table to support cleaner HR status changes. They compare experiences implementing and troubleshooting EPAFs—especially routing, security, and integration with ATS platforms like iCIMS—and identify these as high‑value topics for future conference sessions. The group also examines Banner Communications Management (BCM) and Banner Document Management (BDM), noting that Ellucian’s SaaS strategy is phasing out several legacy components, prompting schools to evaluate alternatives such as OnBase, Optix, and DocFinity for electronic personnel files.

Conversation then shifts to Banner Workflow use cases for onboarding, terminations, student employment, and faculty contracts, followed by an in‑depth exchange on FLAC (Faculty Load and Compensation). Institutions describe phased rollouts, integration with Ad Astra, process cleanup required for accurate course‑load data, audit considerations, and the balance between FLAC’s delivered functionality and existing custom contract systems.

Minnesota schools compare strategies for complying with wage‑theft notification laws, including automated TDX‑triggered messages, Argos‑generated statements, and ATS‑embedded offer‑letter language. The group also discusses iCIMS‑to‑Banner integrations, custom EPAFs, and data‑flow challenges. Finally, they review non‑resident alien tax‑processing workflows, with several institutions relying on Glacier to determine residency status, apply tax treaties, and generate 1042‑S forms. The meeting closes with ATS comparisons (PeopleAdmin, iCIMS, NeoEd), advancement/payroll integration questions, and plans for future topic‑focused sessions leading up to the annual conference.

The conversation covered a wide range of technical and strategic issues facing Banner institutions. It opened with a Git‑related debugging challenge involving custom Banner 8 admin pages whose behavior differed between development and production environments. The group then dove into the Banner 8→9 Proxy Access migration, discussing outdated conversion scripts, new Banner 9 screens, and whether students must re‑grant permissions. Several institutions shared their experiences piloting or planning Banner 9 proxy rollouts.

A major portion of the meeting focused on Ellucian Experience. Participants compared the free tier with the costly Professional/Enterprise tier, noting that Ellucian’s refusal to offer trials makes evaluation difficult. Some institutions are staying with Page Builder, while others are adopting Pathify as an alternative portal. Those using Experience described the steep shift from PL/SQL‑centric development to React, REST APIs, Ethos, and component‑based architectures. Role management challenges, rapid three‑week release cycles, and the need to rebuild Banner 8 customizations as Experience cards were recurring themes.

The group also discussed Ellucian’s strong push toward SaaS and the implications for heavily customized on‑prem Banner environments. Schools that ran the SaaS Blueprint utility reported thousands of non‑vanilla objects—custom tables, triggers, PL/SQL, and Banner 8 self‑service modifications—raising concerns about how such customizations would survive in a no‑SQL‑access SaaS model. Some institutions are planning multi‑year transitions, adopting SaaS‑compatible tools like Experience and Insights while remaining on‑prem for now. Others expressed frustration that Ellucian’s answers often redirect to Professional Services.

Operationally, the group covered FAFSA simplification, including rewriting Argos reports and ROAR rules, handling missing housing data, and navigating confusing crosswalk documentation. Schools also discussed TD Client 3.5 changes, including dual mailboxes, new SFTP endpoints, and configuration differences. Several institutions reported receiving ISIRs early, but many files are currently unusable due to unexpected Department of Education coding changes, requiring an upcoming Ellucian patch.

The meeting closed with a discussion of SSO for Banner admin pages, comparing Azure AD, Okta, Unified/WSO2, and Ethos Identity. Participants shared iframe‑related issues (click‑jacking headers, browser inconsistencies, and Azure’s strict defaults) and workarounds involving layered identity providers or configuration adjustments.

UMBUG members focused on the operational realities of managing admissions, CRM Recruit, and Banner ERP integrations across multiple institutions. Participants compare how they handle application intake, fake‑application prevention, and duplicate PIDM matching—especially when using Quick Start, Recruit submissions, or manual entry. They explore the challenges of supporting multiple applicant types (high‑school academies, dual credit, incarcerated students, course takers, transfer credit evaluations) while avoiding multiple application types in Recruit, which many institutions report as unstable or high‑maintenance.

A major theme is the complexity of multi‑entry academic terms, where schools use Banner concentration fields or other workarounds to track staggered start dates within a single term. The group also discusses change‑of‑program workflows, embedded credentials, and the limitations of accepting students directly in Recruit when Banner allows multiple active programs. Institutions share concerns about Ellucian’s cloud transition, the uncertain future of Page Builder, and slow or incomplete updates to Banner 9 self‑service.

Compliance issues surface as well, particularly GLBA‑related SSN masking, where on‑prem schools received no delivered fix and had to build custom scripts and workflows. Participants also compare field‑mapping strategies, data‑flow pipelines, and the use of views to reconcile historical documents and checklist items. The session ends with plans for cross‑institution collaboration on high‑school academy processes, a request for technical representation in upcoming meetings, and a push to gather session ideas for the UMBUG conference to ensure it delivers practical, user‑driven value.

In this session we compared Banner practices and identify needs for the upcoming Umbug conference. Participants shared experiences with Banner 9 migrations, cybersecurity‑driven upgrade timelines, and the complexity of converting custom jobs. A major theme was the difficulty of implementing EPAFs and determining whether the automation benefits outweigh setup and workflow challenges. Institutions also compared approaches to benefits enrollment, with many relying on third‑party systems such as PlanSource or bSwift due to Banner’s limitations, integration gaps, and the need for automated payroll‑deduction feeds. The group examined the impact of new Minnesota Sick and Safe Time and FMLA legislation, especially the challenge of tracking faculty leave when many schools do not record faculty sick time or hours in Banner. Additional topics included structured vs. inconsistent Banner testing practices, the role of internal Banner governance groups, and interest in conference sessions covering EPAFs, Banner 9 transitions, benefits‑system demos, and leave‑tracking strategies. The meeting closed with reminders to submit topic suggestions and involve broader campus teams in shaping the August conference.

The full discussion centers on shaping the technical agenda for the August UMBUG conference by gathering real needs from financial aid, student accounts, IT, and registrar teams. Participants highlight major upcoming pressures such as FAFSA Simplification delays, uncertainty around Ellucian’s release schedule, and the need for collaborative best‑practice sessions once new database structures and SAI logic are available. Institutions express interest in panels on Degree Works and CPoS implementation, especially since campuses are at very different stages and want to compare approaches, troubleshoot issues, and share lessons learned.

Financial aid staff raise challenges with Banner self‑service wording, COA display confusion, and the need for deeper technical sessions—not just user‑level demos—on building and maintaining algorithmic processing for awarding, budgeting, and workflow automation. With widespread staffing turnover, the group also emphasizes foundational training topics such as Banner navigation, popsel creation, and new‑year setup strategies.

On the student finance side, newer staff want to understand how other institutions streamline Banner processes, reduce paper‑based workflows, manage refunds, and integrate with systems like CashNet. One institution describes operating in a hybrid Workday/Banner environment, prompting interest in how others handle cross‑system data flows.

Finally, the group discusses vendor involvement—Ellucian, SIG, DK, Evisions—and the desire for sessions that go beyond generic overviews to provide concrete best practices and implementation guidance. The meeting closes with reminders to submit topic‑interest forms, encourage team participation, and prepare for the in‑person August conference.

A discussion among registrar, advising, and IT professionals navigating the complexities of Ellucian Banner and Degree Works. Participants begin with the long‑standing Banner prerequisite‑checking defect that prevented simultaneous use of baseline and Degree Works logic, and how the recent fix finally enables unified prerequisite maintenance. They compare strategies for managing complex prereqs, attribute‑based rules, and the implications for student registration and planning.

Conversation shifts to Banner 9 Self‑Service, including preferred‑name display issues, alternate‑ID workarounds, and inconsistent propagation to systems like Canvas, Starfish/Navigate, Touchnet, and retention platforms. Institutions share how they expose student attributes (e.g., pre‑professional tracks) to advisors, and how those limitations push some data into Degree Works instead of Student Profile.

A major portion of the discussion centers on Degree Works set plans—how they feed into Banner 9 registration, the limitations around transfer credit, template maintenance burdens, mass‑assignment options, and the advantages of the responsive dashboard. Participants also explore block scheduling, confirming Banner 9 can support student‑selected blocks when configured correctly.

Operational topics include the COBOL‑to‑Java transition for Banner processes, experiences implementing CPoS (Course Program of Study) and its impact on financial aid eligibility, handling graduate preparatory coursework, and edge cases like second master’s degrees. They also compare approaches to loading applicants into Degree Works, entering transfer credit at the application stage, and whether to use Transfer Equivalency Self‑Service.

The group then examines National Student Clearinghouse reporting—especially widespread 1800 errors, summer‑term complications with zero‑credit courses, and the importance of running time‑status jobs before submissions. They close with discussion of CRM integrations (Salesforce), program‑code structures (one‑to‑one vs. one‑to‑many), SOATERM cleanup challenges, UMBUG community resources, and the ongoing strain of staffing turnover and system upgrades.