Think money (1 Million+), not positions (although they are money also).

History wrote:

---

The million is for software to replace what they currently have (PeopleSoft). It is not the software you use but how you use it that makes a successful application.

---

I clearly remember the trauma of the switch over to PeopleSoft and had wondered how it had performed over the years.    Are there still problems?

 

I was around during the latter stages of the switch from Bull to PeopleSoft; in fact, a big part of my last year in CEd was involved with the switch from paper-based systems to PS. If I recall, PS was all that was available at the time that was remotely practical, and it didn't work the best. I was gone by the time the web-based PS came along and no doubt in the ensuing years better systems have been developed.

However, I recall many people working VERY hard to get PS implemented. The USM campus is populated with many people who want what is best for the school and the students, and are willing to put forth the necessary work and commitment.

LVN Wrote:

"I was around during the latter stages of the switch from Bull to PeopleSoft; in fact, a big part of my last year in CEd was involved with the switch from paper-based systems to PS. If I recall, PS was all that was available at the time that was remotely practical, and it didn't work the best. I was gone by the time the web-based PS came along and no doubt in the ensuing years better systems have been developed."

As a former member of the Faculty Senate Technology Committee at that time, the termination of the Honeywell Bull was framed in "Year2K Hysteria," on the line of "nothing will work anymore, so we have to hurry and switch." There was a competitor to People$oft, but Horace Fleming's hand-selected Chief Technology Officer declared that "Banner doesn't work, but PeopleSoft does, and it will be cheaper than trying to write in-house code." It was only later that we discovered that both Ole Miss and State did their own in-house software development, and that the Technology Officer was a paid consultant to PeopleSoft. Horace Fleming lost his last faculty support at a meeting in CLA, where the question about paying for new PeopleSoft modules every year revealed that "we can't 'quit at a stable configuration' but have to acquire every new module revision as it is released."

Then again, this is now a long time ago, so my memory may be faulty.

Having worked with BULL, PeopleSoft, and now SOAR; any software is only as good as the administrators will let it be.  I remember all of the fussing about PeopleSoft.  The majority of the complaints were because people do not like change and have a tendency to refuse change. 

The Foundation has been needing an overhaul for some time now.  But it is more than a software change that has been needed.  I have been on campus for more than 11 years and problems in the Foundation have been a constant.

Bomlet wrote:

---

Fascinating how people who have only 1/20th of the information can tell the whole story!  Absolutely, bone-chilling amazing!  But that is the story of Southern.  Give a few misguided fans and alums a little information and they will build an epic out of it.

---

Bomlet--

I wonder whether anyone ever has the whole story on anything, at Southern or elsewhere.  Perhaps you would like to share the correct information with us, epic or otherwise.  At least from your point of view.

When the new president at State did not work out, he was gone in two years. The IHL let the bleeding at USM go on for five years.

Yes, an oxymoron kind of like "friendly fire" - and, ultimately, just as lethal!

Posted by Catachresis