Data Governance Council 2018-19 Annual Report

Approved September 12, 2019 

Overview

Stony Brook’s data governance system was established in fall 2016 in order to improve Stony Brook’s data infrastructure. The Data Governance Council (DGC) oversees the data governance system, and began meeting in spring 2017. This is the second annual report of the DGC. 

Major accomplishments

  • Oversaw identification and implementation of 41 projects
    • Complete: 6
    • In progress: 12
    • In queue: 23
  • Completed initial data asset inventory of University data assets
  • Oversaw initial implementation of Data Cookbook as metadata management tool
  • Demonstrated improvement on average maturity of data governance, improving from mean of 2.38 in spring 2017 to a mean of 2.82 in spring 2019 on a 5-point scale.  


Oversaw identification and implementation of 41 projects

The DGC identified 41 projects or issues for attention in 2018-19. Six of these have been completed, 12 are in progress, and 23 are in the queue for 2019-20. The process of identifying and prioritizing issues is ongoing. Completed projects include:

Members 2018-19

Braden Hosch, Chair

Kim Berlin, Co-Chair

Ahmed Belazi

Diane Bello

David Cyrille

Robert Davidson

Lyle Gomes

Kate Larsen

Tracey McEachern

Rodney Morrison

Michael Ospitale

Jacqueline Pascariello

Wendy Tang

[Vacant] Univ. Senate designee

Theresa Diemer, ex officio

  • Adoption of new academic level codes (U5 and U6) for students pursuing additional baccalaureate degrees
  • Resolution of admit types used on East campus to properly code students new to the institution vs. new to East campus.
  • Standardization and clean-up of academic plan names and naming conventions
  • Adoption of process and coding structure for tracking students who were in the foster care system
  • Resolution of item type mismatches between finance and financial aid tables 


Completed projects will improve compliance efforts for financial aid distribution, identification of cohorts for federal graduation rates and outcomes measures, improve distribution of reports Tableau dashboards, comply with SUNY requirements to report foster care information, and align reporting between finance and financial aid. 

In progress projects are listed below.

FDGC                                                                   

Project Name                                                            

Category                                                           

Student           

Citizenship management

Maintenance Issue

 

Citizenship and Visa Type inconsistencies                                             

Data Quality Issue

 

Class section w semantic meaning

Definition Issue

 

Open Educational Resources (OER)

Maintenance Issue

 

Residency

Definition Issue

Finance/HR

Faculty assignment

Maintenance Issue

 

Faculty Program Affiliation

Maintenance Issue

 

Work Location for Employees

Data Quality Issue

 

Employee Citizenship

Maintenance Issue

 

Employee Education

Maintenance Issue

 

Tenure Panel

Maintenance Issue

 

FSA Employees

Maintenance Issue

 

Completed initial data asset inventory

The DGC extended its efforts to implement the University Data Strategy by creating an inventory of major university data assets. This inventory includes 80 data assets principally associated with the University and 161 data assets associated with the hospital and clinical practice.  For the University, the DGC identified responsible administrators as primary contacts for 77 data assets, gathered a basic description of contents, identified storage location, and collected a sensitivity level based on Stony Brook’s P302 Sensitive Information Classification Policy.


Image of data assets broken down into Sensitivity Level - High 61%, Moderate 26%, Low 13%   Storage location of data assets broken down as "Software as svc/cloud" - 55%,  "On premise server" - 53%, "File share" - 9%, "Other" - 10%

For the Hospital, it was determined that advancement of the data asset inventory would be coordinated in conjunction with update of the Hospital’s recovery plan. Inventories would be merged subsequently.


Oversaw initial implementation of Data Cookbook metadata management tool

The Data Cookbook was acquired at the end of 2017-18. This metadata management tool provides a repository for data definitions and other metadata that will be integrated with existing data tools. 

In 2018-19, the technical implementation team configured all administrative components of Data Cookbook, including alignment with SBU Data Dictionary Standards, workflow creation, establishing security roles and user permissions for data stewards, integration with NetID for single sign-on, and configuration of the API for integration with existing data tools. Content developed includes 75 definitions and 15 specifications. The Data Cookbooks was demonstrated to the DGC and FDGCs.

In 2019-20, the team will develop best practices, naming conventions and style sheet for developing definitions; train data stewards on the process to manage data definitions for their area; create profiles for existing reports and analytics as integration points for the Data Cookbook; and add the required coding and files to finalize the report and analytics integration.


Demonstrated improvement in maturity of data governance 

In May 2019, the DGC evaluated the university’s maturity in data governance practices compared to a baseline measured in spring 2017. This maturity model measures practices in communication, culture, organizational structures, data quality, and roles and responsibilities across five data domains: financial, student/academic, human resources, research, and facilities.  Maturity was rated on a 5-point scale (1-informal, 2-developing, 3-adopted & implemented, 4-managed & repeatable, 5-integrated and optimized). Members of the DGC and the Functional Data Governance Committees were invited to participate; 32 responses were received. Overall, maturity improved from the “developing” range to the “adopted & implemented” range.


Bar chart showing data governance maturity model results. Each category displays two scores (blue and orange). Overall: 2.4 vs 2.8. Communication: 2.1 vs 2.5. Culture: 2.8 vs 2.9. Organizational Structures: 2.3 vs 3.1. Data Quality: 2.8 vs 2.9. Roles & Responsibilities: 2.0 vs 3.0. Orange scores are consistently higher than blue across all categories.

Bar chart comparing data governance maturity scores for 2017 (blue) and 2019 (orange) across data domains. Financial Data: 2.8 vs 3.0. Student Data: 2.4 vs 3.2. Human Resources: 2.4 vs 2.8. Research: 2.5 vs 2.4. Facilities: 1.8 vs 2.8. Most domains show improvement from 2017 to 2019, with the largest increase in Student Data and Facilities, while Research shows a slight decline.

 

 

ANNUAL REPORT 2024-25

                                             

ANNUAL REPORT 2023-24

                                             

ANNUAL REPORT 2022-23

ANNUAL REPORT 2021-22

                                             

ANNUAL REPORT 2020-21

                                             

ANNUAL REPORT 2019-20

ANNUAL REPORT 2018-19

                                             

ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18