Search Results

Search found 126 results on 6 pages for 'federal'.

Page 1/6 | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

• PeopleSoft Grants & the Federal Agency Letter of Credit Draw Changes

  - by Mark Rosenberg

  For decades, most, if not all, US Federal agencies that sponsor research allowed grant recipients to request and receive payments using pooled accounts, commonly known as pooled letter of credit (LOC) draws. This enabled organizations, such as universities and hospitals, fast and efficient access to reimbursement of the expenditures they incurred conducting research across a portfolio of grants. To support this business practice, the PeopleSoft Grants solution has delivered an LOC Draw report to provide the total request amount along with all of the supporting invoice details for reconciliation and audit purposes. Now, in an attempt to provide greater transparency, eliminate fraud, strengthen accountability for grant-related financial transactions, and simplify grant award closeout, many US Federal sponsors are transitioning from the “pooling” letter of credit draw method to requesting on a “grant-by-grant” basis. The National Science Foundation, the second largest issuer of Federal awards, already transitioned to detailed grant draws in 2013. And, in response to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) directive to HHS-supported Agencies, the largest Federal awards sponsor, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will fully transition to the new HHS subaccount draw method. This will require NIH award recipients to request payments based on actual expenses incurred on an award-by-award basis. NIH is expected to fully transition to this new draw method by the end of Federal fiscal year 2015.  (The NIH had planned to fully transition to this new method by the end of fiscal 2014; however, the impact to institutions was deemed to be significant enough that a reprieve was recently granted.) In light of these new Federal draw requirements, we have recently released these new features to aid our customers on both PeopleSoft Grants releases 9.1 and 9.2:1. Federal Award Identification Number on the Proposal and Award Profile 2. Letter of credit fields on contract lines to support award basis draws and comply with Federal close out mandates3. Process to produce both pro forma and final LOC Draw Reports in BI Publisher report format4. Subacccount ID field on the LOC Summary and a new BI Publisher version of the LOC Summary report 5. Added Subaccount Field and contract info to be displayed on the LOC summary page6. Ability to generate by a variety of dimensions pro forma and invoiced draw listings 7. Queries for generation and manipulation of data to upload into sponsor payment request systems and perform payment matching8. Contracts LOC Close Out query to quickly review final balances prior to initiating final draws and preparing Federal Financial Reports prior to close The PeopleSoft Development team actively monitors this and other major Federal changes and continues working closely with the Grants Product Advisory Group of the Higher Education User Group to ensure a clear understanding of what our customers need in order to transition to new approaches for doing business with the Federal government. For more information regarding the enhancements to the PeopleSoft Grants solution, existing customers can login to My Oracle Support and review the Enhancements to Letter of Credit Process (Doc ID 1912692.1) associated with resolution ID 904830. This enhanced LOC functionality is available in both PeopleSoft FSCM 9.1 Bundle #31 and PeopleSoft FSCM 9.2 Update Image 8.

  Read the article

• An Actionable Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture

  - by TedMcLaughlan

  The recent “Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture” (US Executive Office of the President, May 2 2012) is extremely timely and well-organized guidance for the Federal IT investment and deployment community, as useful for Federal Departments and Agencies as it is for their stakeholders and integration partners. The guidance not only helps IT Program Planners and Managers, but also informs and prepares constituents who may be the beneficiaries or otherwise impacted by the investment. The FEA Common Approach extends from and builds on the rapidly-maturing Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) and its associated artifacts and standards, already included to a large degree in the annual Federal Portfolio and Investment Management processes – for example the OMB’s Exhibit 300 (i.e. Business Case justification for IT investments).A very interesting element of this Approach includes the very necessary guidance for actually using an Enterprise Architecture (EA) and/or its collateral – good guidance for any organization charged with maintaining a broad portfolio of IT investments. The associated FEA Reference Models (i.e. the BRM, DRM, TRM, etc.) are very helpful frameworks for organizing, understanding, communicating and standardizing across agencies with respect to vocabularies, architecture patterns and technology standards. Determining when, how and to what level of detail to include these reference models in the typically long-running Federal IT acquisition cycles wasn’t always clear, however, particularly during the first interactions of a Program’s technical and functional leadership with the Mission owners and investment planners. This typically occurs as an agency begins the process of describing its strategy and business case for allocation of new Federal funding, reacting to things like new legislation or policy, real or anticipated mission challenges, or straightforward ROI opportunities (for example the introduction of new technologies that deliver significant cost-savings).The early artifacts (i.e. Resource Allocation Plans, Acquisition Plans, Exhibit 300’s or other Business Case materials, etc.) of the intersection between Mission owners, IT and Program Managers are far easier to understand and discuss, when the overlay of an evolved, actionable Enterprise Architecture (such as the FEA) is applied.  “Actionable” is the key word – too many Public Service entity EA’s (including the FEA) have for too long been used simply as a very highly-abstracted standards reference, duly maintained and nominally-enforced by an Enterprise or System Architect’s office. Refreshing elements of this recent FEA Common Approach include one of the first Federally-documented acknowledgements of the “Solution Architect” (the “Problem-Solving” role). This role collaborates with the Enterprise, System and Business Architecture communities primarily on completing actual “EA Roadmap” documents. These are roadmaps grounded in real cost, technical and functional details that are fully aligned with both contextual expectations (for example the new “Digital Government Strategy” and its required roadmap deliverables - and the rapidly increasing complexities of today’s more portable and transparent IT solutions.  We also expect some very critical synergies to develop in early IT investment cycles between this new breed of “Federal Enterprise Solution Architect” and the first waves of the newly-formal “Federal IT Program Manager” roles operating under more standardized “critical competency” expectations (including EA), likely already to be seriously influencing the quality annual CPIC (Capital Planning and Investment Control) processes.  Our Oracle Enterprise Strategy Team (EST) and associated Oracle Enterprise Architecture (OEA) practices are already engaged in promoting and leveraging the visibility of Enterprise Architecture as a key contributor to early IT investment validation, and we look forward in particular to seeing the real, citizen-centric benefits of this FEA Common Approach in particular surface across the entire Public Service CPIC domain - Federal, State, Local, Tribal and otherwise. Read more Enterprise Architecture blog posts for additional EA insight!

  Read the article

• Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture (EA)

  - by TedMcLaughlan

  Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture A taxonomy of subject areas, from which to develop a prioritized marketing and communications plan to evangelize EA activities within and among US Federal Government organizations and constituents. Any and all feedback is appreciated, particularly in developing and extending this discussion as a tool for use – more information and details are also available. "Selling" the discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the Federal Government (particularly in non-DoD agencies) is difficult, notwithstanding the general availability and use of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) for some time now, and the relatively mature use of the reference models in the OMB Capital Planning and Investment (CPIC) cycles. EA in the Federal Government also tends to be a very esoteric and hard to decipher conversation – early apologies to those who agree to continue reading this somewhat lengthy article. Alignment to the FEAF and OMB compliance mandates is long underway across the Federal Departments and Agencies (and visible via tools like PortfolioStat and ITDashboard.gov – but there is still a gap between the top-down compliance directives and enablement programs, and the bottom-up awareness and effective use of EA for either IT investment management or actual mission effectiveness. "EA isn't getting deep enough penetration into programs, components, sub-agencies, etc.", verified a panelist at the most recent EA Government Conference in DC. Newer guidance from OMB may be especially difficult to handle, where bottom-up input can't be accurately aligned, analyzed and reported via standardized EA discipline at the Agency level – for example in addressing the new (for FY13) Exhibit 53D "Agency IT Reductions and Reinvestments" and the information required for "Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation" (supporting the new Exhibit 53C, "Agency Cloud Computing Portfolio"). Therefore, EA must be "sold" directly to the communities that matter, from a coordinated, proactive messaging perspective that takes BOTH the Program-level value drivers AND the broader Agency mission and IT maturity context into consideration. Selling EA means persuading others to take additional time and possibly assign additional resources, for a mix of direct and indirect benefits – many of which aren't likely to be realized in the short-term. This means there's probably little current, allocated budget to work with; ergo the challenge of trying to sell an "unfunded mandate". Also, the concept of "Enterprise" in large Departments like Homeland Security tends to cross all kinds of organizational boundaries – as Richard Spires recently indicated by commenting that "...organizational boundaries still trump functional similarities. Most people understand what we're trying to do internally, and at a high level they get it. The problem, of course, is when you get down to them and their system and the fact that you're going to be touching them...there's always that fear factor," Spires said. It is quite clear to the Federal IT Investment community that for EA to meet its objective, understandable, relevant value must be measured and reported using a repeatable method – as described by GAO's recent report "Enterprise Architecture Value Needs To Be Measured and Reported". What's not clear is the method or guidance to sell this value. In fact, the current GAO "Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0)", a.k.a. the "EAMMF", does not include words like "sell", "persuade", "market", etc., except in reference ("within Core Element 19: Organization business owner and CXO representatives are actively engaged in architecture development") to a brief section in the CIO Council's 2001 "Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture", entitled "3.3.1. Develop an EA Marketing Strategy and Communications Plan." Furthermore, Core Element 19 of the EAMMF is advised to be applied in "Stage 3: Developing Initial EA Versions". This kind of EA sales campaign truly should start much earlier in the maturity progress, i.e. in Stages 0 or 1. So, what are the understandable, relevant benefits (or value) to sell, that can find an agreeable, participatory audience, and can pave the way towards success of a longer-term, funded set of EA mechanisms that can be methodically measured and reported? Pragmatic benefits from a useful EA that can help overcome the fear of change? And how should they be sold? Following is a brief taxonomy (it's a taxonomy, to help organize SME support) of benefit-related subjects that might make the most sense, in creating the messages and organizing an initial "engagement plan" for evangelizing EA "from within". An EA "Sales Taxonomy" of sorts. We're not boiling the ocean here; the subjects that are included are ones that currently appear to be urgently relevant to the current Federal IT Investment landscape. Note that successful dialogue in these topics is directly usable as input or guidance for actually developing early-stage, "Fit-for-Purpose" (a DoDAF term) Enterprise Architecture artifacts, as prescribed by common methods found in most EA methodologies, including FEAF, TOGAF, DoDAF and our own Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF). The taxonomy below is organized by (1) Target Community, (2) Benefit or Value, and (3) EA Program Facet - as in: "Let's talk to (1: Community Member) about how and why (3: EA Facet) the EA program can help with (2: Benefit/Value)". Once the initial discussion targets and subjects are approved (that can be measured and reported), a "marketing and communications plan" can be created. A working example follows the Taxonomy. Enterprise Architecture Sales Taxonomy Draft, Summary Version 1. Community 1.1. Budgeted Programs or Portfolios Communities of Purpose (CoPR) 1.1.1. Program/System Owners (Senior Execs) Creating or Executing Acquisition Plans 1.1.2. Program/System Owners Facing Strategic Change 1.1.2.1. Mandated 1.1.2.2. Expected/Anticipated 1.1.3. Program Managers - Creating Employee Performance Plans 1.1.4. CO/COTRs – Creating Contractor Performance Plans, or evaluating Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP) 1.2. Governance & Communications Communities of Practice (CoP) 1.2.1. Policy Owners 1.2.1.1. OCFO 1.2.1.1.1. Budget/Procurement Office 1.2.1.1.2. Strategic Planning 1.2.1.2. OCIO 1.2.1.2.1. IT Management 1.2.1.2.2. IT Operations 1.2.1.2.3. Information Assurance (Cyber Security) 1.2.1.2.4. IT Innovation 1.2.1.3. Information-Sharing/ Process Collaboration (i.e. policies and procedures regarding Partners, Agreements) 1.2.2. Governing IT Council/SME Peers (i.e. an "Architects Council") 1.2.2.1. Enterprise Architects (assumes others exist; also assumes EA participants aren't buried solely within the CIO shop) 1.2.2.2. Domain, Enclave, Segment Architects – i.e. the right affinity group for a "shared services" EA structure (per the EAMMF), which may be classified as Federated, Segmented, Service-Oriented, or Extended 1.2.2.3. External Oversight/Constraints 1.2.2.3.1. GAO/OIG & Legal 1.2.2.3.2. Industry Standards 1.2.2.3.3. Official public notification, response 1.2.3. Mission Constituents Participant & Analyst Community of Interest (CoI) 1.2.3.1. Mission Operators/Users 1.2.3.2. Public Constituents 1.2.3.3. Industry Advisory Groups, Stakeholders 1.2.3.4. Media 2. Benefit/Value (Note the actual benefits may not be discretely attributable to EA alone; EA is a very collaborative, cross-cutting discipline.) 2.1. Program Costs – EA enables sound decisions regarding... 2.1.1. Cost Avoidance – a TCO theme 2.1.2. Sequencing – alignment of capability delivery 2.1.3. Budget Instability – a Federal reality 2.2. Investment Capital – EA illuminates new investment resources via... 2.2.1. Value Engineering – contractor-driven cost savings on existing budgets, direct or collateral 2.2.2. Reuse – reuse of investments between programs can result in savings, chargeback models; avoiding duplication 2.2.3. License Refactoring – IT license & support models may not reflect actual or intended usage 2.3. Contextual Knowledge – EA enables informed decisions by revealing... 2.3.1. Common Operating Picture (COP) – i.e. cross-program impacts and synergy, relative to context 2.3.2. Expertise & Skill – who truly should be involved in architectural decisions, both business and IT 2.3.3. Influence – the impact of politics and relationships can be examined 2.3.4. Disruptive Technologies – new technologies may reduce costs or mitigate risk in unanticipated ways 2.3.5. What-If Scenarios – can become much more refined, current, verifiable; basis for Target Architectures 2.4. Mission Performance – EA enables beneficial decision results regarding... 2.4.1. IT Performance and Optimization – towards 100% effective, available resource utilization 2.4.2. IT Stability – towards 100%, real-time uptime 2.4.3. Agility – responding to rapid changes in mission 2.4.4. Outcomes –measures of mission success, KPIs – vs. only "Outputs" 2.4.5. Constraints – appropriate response to constraints 2.4.6. Personnel Performance – better line-of-sight through performance plans to mission outcome 2.5. Mission Risk Mitigation – EA mitigates decision risks in terms of... 2.5.1. Compliance – all the right boxes are checked 2.5.2. Dependencies –cross-agency, segment, government 2.5.3. Transparency – risks, impact and resource utilization are illuminated quickly, comprehensively 2.5.4. Threats and Vulnerabilities – current, realistic awareness and profiles 2.5.5. Consequences – realization of risk can be mapped as a series of consequences, from earlier decisions or new decisions required for current issues 2.5.5.1. Unanticipated – illuminating signals of future or non-symmetric risk; helping to "future-proof" 2.5.5.2. Anticipated – discovering the level of impact that matters 3. EA Program Facet (What parts of the EA can and should be communicated, using business or mission terms?) 3.1. Architecture Models – the visual tools to be created and used 3.1.1. Operating Architecture – the Business Operating Model/Architecture elements of the EA truly drive all other elements, plus expose communication channels 3.1.2. Use Of – how can the EA models be used, and how are they populated, from a reasonable, pragmatic yet compliant perspective? What are the core/minimal models required? What's the relationship of these models, with existing system models? 3.1.3. Scope – what level of granularity within the models, and what level of abstraction across the models, is likely to be most effective and useful? 3.2. Traceability – the maturity, status, completeness of the tools 3.2.1. Status – what in fact is the degree of maturity across the integrated EA model and other relevant governance models, and who may already be benefiting from it? 3.2.2. Visibility – how does the EA visibly and effectively prove IT investment performance goals are being reached, with positive mission outcome? 3.3. Governance – what's the interaction, participation method; how are the tools used? 3.3.1. Contributions – how is the EA program informed, accept submissions, collect data? Who are the experts? 3.3.2. Review – how is the EA validated, against what criteria?  Taxonomy Usage Example:   1. To speak with: a. ...a particular set of System Owners Facing Strategic Change, via mandate (like the "Cloud First" mandate); about... b. ...how the EA program's visible and easily accessible Infrastructure Reference Model (i.e. "IRM" or "TRM"), if updated more completely with current system data, can... c. ...help shed light on ways to mitigate risks and avoid future costs associated with NOT leveraging potentially-available shared services across the enterprise... 2. ....the following Marketing & Communications (Sales) Plan can be constructed: a. Create an easy-to-read "Consequence Model" that illustrates how adoption of a cloud capability (like elastic operational storage) can enable rapid and durable compliance with the mandate – using EA traceability. Traceability might be from the IRM to the ARM (that identifies reusable services invoking the elastic storage), and then to the PRM with performance measures (such as % utilization of purchased storage allocation) included in the OMB Exhibits; and b. Schedule a meeting with the Program Owners, timed during their Acquisition Strategy meetings in response to the mandate, to use the "Consequence Model" for advising them to organize a rapid and relevant RFI solicitation for this cloud capability (regarding alternatives for sourcing elastic operational storage); and c. Schedule a series of short "Discovery" meetings with the system architecture leads (as agreed by the Program Owners), to further populate/validate the "As-Is" models and frame the "To Be" models (via scenarios), to better inform the RFI, obtain the best feedback from the vendor community, and provide potential value for and avoid impact to all other programs and systems. --end example -- Note that communications with the intended audience should take a page out of the standard "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO) playbook, using keywords and phrases relating to "value" and "outcome" vs. "compliance" and "output". Searches in email boxes, internal and external search engines for phrases like "cost avoidance strategies", "mission performance metrics" and "innovation funding" should yield messages and content from the EA team. This targeted, informed, practical sales approach should result in additional buy-in and participation, additional EA information contribution and model validation, development of more SMEs and quick "proof points" (with real-life testing) to bolster the case for EA. The proof point here is a successful, timely procurement that satisfies not only the external mandate and external oversight review, but also meets internal EA compliance/conformance goals and therefore is more transparently useful across the community. In short, if sold effectively, the EA will perform and be recognized. EA won’t therefore be used only for compliance, but also (according to a validated, stated purpose) to directly influence decisions and outcomes. The opinions, views and analysis expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Oracle.

  Read the article

• Announcement: Federal Financial Briefing

  - by jeffrey.waterman

  Dear Oracle/PeopleSoft Federal Financial Management Customers: Oracle is pleased to announce that we will conduct the next Federal Financial Management Briefing on Tuesday, April 17th from 8:30 am until 2:00 pm at the Oracle Campus in Reston, Virginia. The Registration Link and Agenda can be found at the web site below: Federal Financial Briefing: Register Here Directions to Oracle Reston: From the Beltway take the Dulles Toll Road (Route 267 West). Do not get on the Dulles Access Road or you will not be able to exit until you get to the airport. Take the Reston Parkway Exit (Exit 12). At the end of the exit ramp, turn right onto Reston Parkway. Make your first right onto Sunset Hills Road. Take a Right turn onto Oracle Way and park in Visitor Parking. The receptionist will direct you to the CAB.

  Read the article

• Iron Mountain Readies for New Federal Records Rule

  New rules requiring that federal records be kept secure and readily available could mean more compliance business for data storage vendors.

  Read the article

• White House Cybersecurity Chief Slams Federal Security Efforts

  Although agencies are improving cybersecurity at the national level, the federal approach to securing U.S. interests online still leaves much to be desired, a high-ranking Obama administration official said....Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Create a Social Community of Trust Along With Your Federal Digital Services Governance

  - by TedMcLaughlan

  The Digital Services Governance Recommendations were recently released, supporting the US Federal Government's Digital Government Strategy Milestone Action #4.2 to establish agency-wide governance structures for developing and delivering digital services. Figure 1 - From: "Digital Services Governance Recommendations" While extremely important from a policy and procedure perspective within an Agency's information management and communications enterprise, these recommendations only very lightly reference perhaps the most important success enabler - the "Trusted Community" required for ultimate usefulness of the services delivered. By "ultimate usefulness", I mean the collection of public, transparent properties around government information and digital services that include social trust and validation, social reach, expert respect, and comparative, standard measures of relative value. In other words, do the digital services meet expectations of the public, social media ecosystem (people AND machines)? A rigid governance framework, controlling by rules, policies and roles the creation and dissemination of digital services may meet the expectations of direct end-users and most stakeholders - including the agency information stewards and security officers. All others who may share comments about the services, write about them, swap or review extracts, repackage, visualize or otherwise repurpose the output for use in entirely unanticipated, social ways - these "stakeholders" will not be governed, but may observe guidance generated by a "Trusted Community". As recognized members of the trusted community, these stakeholders may ultimately define the right scope and detail of governance that all other users might observe, promoting and refining the usefulness of the government product as the social ecosystem expects. So, as part of an agency-centric governance framework, it's advised that a flexible governance model be created for stewarding a "Community of Trust" around the digital services. The first steps follow the approach outlined in the Recommendations: Step 1: Gather a Core Team In addition to the roles and responsibilities described, perhaps a set of characteristics and responsibilities can be developed for the "Trusted Community Steward/Advocate" - i.e. a person or team who (a) are entirely cognizant of and respected within the external social media communities, and (b) are trusted both within the agency and outside as practical, responsible, non-partisan communicators of useful information. The may seem like a standard Agency PR/Outreach team role - but often an agency or stakeholder subject matter expert with a public, active social persona works even better. Step 2: Assess What You Have In addition to existing, agency or stakeholder decision-making bodies and assets, it's important to take a PR/Marketing view of the social ecosystem. How visible are the services across the social channels utilized by current or desired constituents of your agency? What's the online reputation of your agency and perhaps the service(s)? Is Search Engine Optimization (SEO) a facet of external communications/publishing lifecycles? Who are the public champions, instigators, value-adders for the digital services, or perhaps just influential "communicators" (i.e. with no stake in the game)? You're essentially assessing your market and social presence, and identifying the actors (including your own agency employees) in the existing community of trust. Step 3: Determine What You Want The evolving Community of Trust will most readily absorb, support and provide feedback regarding "Core Principles" (Element B of the "six essential elements of a digital services governance structure") shared by your Agency, and obviously play a large, though probably very unstructured part in Element D "Stakeholder Input and Participation". Plan for this, and seek input from the social media community with respect to performance metrics - these should be geared around the outcome and growth of the trusted communities actions. How big and active is this community? What's the influential reach of this community with respect to particular messaging or campaigns generated by the Agency? What's the referral rate TO your digital services, FROM channels owned or operated by members of this community? (this requires governance with respect to content generation inclusive of "markers" or "tags"). At this point, while your Agency proceeds with steps 4 ("Build/Validate the Governance Structure") and 5 ("Share, Review, Upgrade"), the Community of Trust might as well just get going, and start adding value and usefulness to the existing conversations, existing data services - loosely though directionally-stewarded by your trusted advocate(s). Why is this an "Enterprise Architecture" topic? Because it's increasingly apparent that a Public Service "Enterprise" is not wholly contained within Agency facilities, firewalls and job titles - it's also manifested in actual, perceived or representative forms outside the walls, on the social Internet. An Agency's EA model and resulting investments both facilitate and are impacted by the "Social Enterprise". At Oracle, we're very active both within our Enterprise and outside, helping foster social architectures that enable truly useful public services, digital or otherwise.

  Read the article

• College Ratings via the Federal Government

  - by user9147039

  A few weeks back you might remember news about a higher education rating system proposal from the Obama administration. As I've discussed previously, political and stakeholder pressures to improve outcomes and increase transparency are stronger than ever before. The executive branch proposal is intended to make progress in this area. Quoting from the proposal itself, "The ratings will be based upon such measures as: Access, such as percentage of students receiving Pell grants; Affordability, such as average tuition, scholarships, and loan debt; and Outcomes, such as graduation and transfer rates, graduate earnings, and advanced degrees of college graduates.” This is going to be quite complex, to say the least. Most notably, higher ed is not monolithic. From community and other 2-year colleges, to small private 4-year, to professional schools, to large public research institutions…the many walks of higher ed life are, well, many. Designing a ratings system that doesn't wind up with lots of unintended consequences and collateral damage will be difficult. At best you would end up potentially tarnishing the reputation of certain institutions that were actually performing well against the metrics and outcome measures that make sense in their "context" of education. At worst you could spend a lot of time and resources designing a system that would lose credibility with its "customers". A lot of institutions I work with already have in place systems like the one described above. They are tracking completion rates, completion timeframes, transfers to other institutions, job placement, and salary information. As I talk to these institutions there are several constants worth noting: • Deciding on which metrics to measure is complicated. While employment and salary data are relatively easy to track, qualitative measures are more difficult. How do you quantify the benefit to someone who studies in one field that may not compensate him or her as well as another field but that provides huge personal fulfillment and reward is a difficult measure to quantify? • The data is available but the systems to transform the data into actual information that can be used in meaningful ways are not. Too often in higher ed information is siloed. As such, much of the data that need to be a part of a comprehensive system sit in multiple organizations, oftentimes outside the reach of core IT. • Politics and culture are big barriers. One of the areas that my team and I spend a lot of time talking about with higher ed institutions all over the world is the imperative to optimize for student success. This, like the tracking of the students’ achievement after graduation, requires a level or organizational capacity that does not currently exist. The primary barrier is the culture of "data islands" in higher ed, and the need for leadership to drive out the divisions between departments, schools, colleges, etc. and institute academy-wide analytics and data stewardship initiatives that will enable student success. • Data quality is a very big issue. So many disparate systems exist (some on premise, some "in the cloud") that keep data about "persons" using different means to identify them. Establishing a single source of truth about an individual and his or her data is difficult without some type of data quality policy and tools. Good tools actually exist but are seldom leveraged. Don't misunderstand - I think it's a great idea to drive additional transparency and accountability into the system of higher education. And not just at home, but globally. Students and parents need access to key data to make informed, responsible choices. The tools exist to not only enable this kind of information to be shared but to capture the very metrics stakeholders care most about and in a way that makes sense in the context of a given institution's "place" in the overall higher ed panoply.

  Read the article

• What Would a CyberWar Do To Your Business?

  - by Brian Dayton

  In mid-February the Bipartisan Policy Center in the United States hosted Cyber ShockWave, a simulation of how the country might respond to a catastrophic cyber event. An attack takes place, they can't isolate where it came from or who did it, simulated press reports and market impacts...and the participants in the exercise have to brief the President and advise him/her on what to do. Last week, Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff who participated in the exercise summarized his findings in Federal Computer Weekly. The article, given FCW's readership and the topic is obviously focused on the public sector and US Federal policies. However, it touches on some broader issues that impact the private sector as well--which are applicable to any government and country/region-- such as: ·         How would the US (or any) government collaborate to identify and defeat such an attack? Chertoff calls this out as a current gap. How do the public and private sector collaborate today? How would the massive and disparate collection of agencies and companies act together in a crunch? ·         What would the impact on industries and global economies be? Chertoff, and a companion article in Government Computer News, only touch briefly on the subject--focusing on the impact on capital markets. "There's no question this has a disastrous impact on the economy," said Stephen Friedman, former director of the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush who played the role of treasury secretary. "You have financial markets shut down at this point, ordinary transactions are dramatically depleted, there's no question that this has a major impact on consumer confidence." That Got Me Thinking ·         How would it impact Oracle's customers? I know they have business continuity plans--is this one of their scenarios? What if it's not? How would it impact manufacturing lines, ATM networks, customer call centers... ·         How would it impact me and the companies I rely on? The supermarket down the street, my Internet Service Provider, the service station where I bought gas last night.   I sure don't have any answers, and neither do Chertoff or the participants in the exercise. "I have to tell you that ... we are operating in a bit of unchartered territory." said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general who played the role of attorney general in the exercise.    But it is a good thing that governments and businesses are considering this scenario and doing what they can to prevent it from happening.

  Read the article

• What Would a CyberWar Do To Your Business?

  - by [email protected]

  In mid-February the Bipartisan Policy Center in the United States hosted Cyber ShockWave, a simulation of how the country might respond to a catastrophic cyber event. An attack takes place, they can't isolate where it came from or who did it, simulated press reports and market impacts...and the participants in the exercise have to brief the President and advise him/her on what to do. Last week, Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff who participated in the exercise summarized his findings in Federal Computer Weekly. The article, given FCW's readership and the topic is obviously focused on the public sector and US Federal policies. However, it touches on some broader issues that impact the private sector as well--which are applicable to any government and country/region-- such as: · How would the US (or any) government collaborate to identify and defeat such an attack? Chertoff calls this out as a current gap. How do the public and private sector collaborate today? How would the massive and disparate collection of agencies and companies act together in a crunch? · What would the impact on industries and global economies be? Chertoff, and a companion article in Government Computer News, only touch briefly on the subject--focusing on the impact on capital markets. "There's no question this has a disastrous impact on the economy," said Stephen Friedman, former director of the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush who played the role of treasury secretary. "You have financial markets shut down at this point, ordinary transactions are dramatically depleted, there's no question that this has a major impact on consumer confidence." That Got Me Thinking · How would it impact Oracle's customers? I know they have business continuity plans--is this one of their scenarios? What if it's not? How would it impact manufacturing lines, ATM networks, customer call centers... · How would it impact me and the companies I rely on? The supermarket down the street, my Internet Service Provider, the service station where I bought gas last night. I sure don't have any answers, and neither do Chertoff or the participants in the exercise. "I have to tell you that ... we are operating in a bit of unchartered territory." said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general who played the role of attorney general in the exercise. But it is a good thing that governments and businesses are considering this scenario and doing what they can to prevent it from happening.

  Read the article

• state and federal representatives by zip

  - by antony.trupe

  Is there a service that will provide information on who the state and federal representatives are by zip+4?

  Read the article

• US State and Federal representatives by zip

  - by antony.trupe

  Is there a service that will provide information on who the US State and Federal representatives are by zip+4?

  Read the article

• Jquery datepicker: disable federal holidays

  - by Abu Hamzah

  i am working on asp.net using C# and using jquery datepicker my question is, how can i disable dates which are federal holidays? i have a dynamic dates which comes from sql server. anybody have done something similar or any idea how can i achieve this? $(document).ready(function () { $('#endDate').datepicker({ showOn: 'button', buttonImage: '../images/Calendar.png', buttonImageOnly: true, onSelect: function () { }, onClose: function () { $(this).focus(); } }); $('#startDate').datepicker({ showOn: 'button', buttonImage: '../images/Calendar.png', buttonImageOnly: true, onSelect: function (dateText, inst) { $('#endDate').datepicker("option", 'minDate', new Date(dateText)); } , onClose: function () { $(this).focus(); } }); }); Thanks.

  Read the article

• Contract Lifecycle Management for Public Sector

  - by jeffrey.waterman

  Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} One thing Oracle never seems to get enough credit for is its consistent quest to improve its products, even the ones as established as its back-office solutions. Here is another example of one of the latest improvements: Contract Lifecycle Management for Public Sector, or CLM. The latest EBS module geared specifically for the Federal acquisition community. Our existing customers have been asking Oracle for years to upgrade its Advanced Procurement Suite to meet the complex procurement processes of the Federal Government. You asked; we listened. Oracle, with direct input from Federal agencies, subject matter experts, integration partners, and the Federal acquisition community, has expanded and deepened its procurement suite to meet the unique demands of the Federal acquisition community. New benefits/features include: Contract Line Item/Sub-Line Item (CLIN/SLIN) structures Configurable Document Numbering Complex Pricing Contract Types ( as per FAR Part 16) Option lines and exercising of options Incremental Funding capability Support for multiple document types (delivery orders, BPA call orders, awards, agreements, IDIQ contracts) Requisition lines to fund modifications Workload assignment and milestones Contract Action Reporting to FPDS-NG I’ve been conducting many tests over the past few months and have been quite impressed with the depth of features and the seamless integration to Federal Financials, specifically the funds control within the financials. Again, thank you for reading. If you have suggestions for future posts, please leave them in the comments section and I’ll take it from there.

  Read the article

• Trying to sentinel loop this program.

  - by roger34

  Okay, I spent all this time making this for class but I have one thing that I can't quite get: I need this to sentinel loop continuously (exiting upon entering x) so that the System.out.println("What type of Employee? Enter 'o' for Office " + "Clerical, 'f' for Factory, or 's' for Saleperson. Enter 'x' to exit." ); line comes back up after they enter the first round of information. Also, I can't leave this up long on the (very) off chance a classmate might see this and steal the code. Full code following: import java.util.Scanner; public class Project1 { public static void main (String args[]){ Scanner inp = new Scanner( System.in ); double totalPay; System.out.println("What type of Employee? Enter 'o' for Office " + "Clerical, 'f' for Factory, or 's' for Saleperson. Enter 'x' to exit." ); String response= inp.nextLine(); while (!response.toLowerCase().equals("o")&&!response.toLowerCase().equals("f") &&!response.toLowerCase().equals("s")&&!response.toLowerCase().equals("x")){ System.out.print("\nInvalid selection,please enter your choice again:\n"); response=inp.nextLine(); } char choice = response.toLowerCase().charAt( 0 ); switch (choice){ case 'o': System.out.println("Enter your hourly rate:"); double officeRate=inp.nextDouble(); System.out.println("Enter the number of hours worked:"); double officeHours=inp.nextDouble(); totalPay = officeCalc(officeRate,officeHours); taxCalc(totalPay); break; case 'f': System.out.println("How many Widgets did you produce during the week?"); double widgets=inp.nextDouble(); totalPay=factoryCalc(widgets); taxCalc(totalPay); break; case 's': System.out.println("What were your total sales for the week?"); double totalSales=inp.nextDouble(); totalPay=salesCalc(totalSales); taxCalc(totalPay); break; } } public static double taxCalc(double totalPay){ double federal=totalPay*.22; double state =totalPay*.055; double netPay = totalPay - federal - state; federal =federal*Math.pow(10,2); federal =Math.round(federal); federal= federal/Math.pow(10,2); state =state*Math.pow(10,2); state =Math.round(state); state= state/Math.pow(10,2); totalPay =totalPay*Math.pow(10,2); totalPay =Math.round(totalPay); totalPay= totalPay/Math.pow(10,2); netPay =netPay*Math.pow(10,2); netPay =Math.round(netPay); netPay= netPay/Math.pow(10,2); System.out.printf("\nTotal Pay \t: %1$.2f.\n", totalPay); System.out.printf("State W/H \t: %1$.2f.\n", state); System.out.printf("Federal W/H : %1$.2f.\n", federal); System.out.printf("Net Pay \t: %1$.2f.\n", netPay); return totalPay; } public static double officeCalc(double officeRate,double officeHours){ double overtime=0; if (officeHours>=40) overtime = officeHours-40; else overtime = 0; if (officeHours >= 40) officeHours = 40; double otRate = officeRate * 1.5; double totalPay= (officeRate * officeHours) + (otRate*overtime); return totalPay; } public static double factoryCalc(double widgets){ double totalPay=widgets*.35 +300; return totalPay; } public static double salesCalc(double totalSales){ double totalPay = totalSales * .05 + 500; return totalPay; } }

  Read the article

• Trying to sentinel loop this program. [java]

  - by roger34

  Okay, I spent all this time making this for class but I have one thing that I can't quite get: I need this to sentinel loop continuously (exiting upon entering x) so that the System.out.println("What type of Employee? Enter 'o' for Office " + "Clerical, 'f' for Factory, or 's' for Saleperson. Enter 'x' to exit." ); line comes back up after they enter the first round of information. Also, I can't leave this up long on the (very) off chance a classmate might see this and steal the code. Full code following: import java.util.Scanner; public class Project1 { public static void main (String args[]){ Scanner inp = new Scanner( System.in ); double totalPay; System.out.println("What type of Employee? Enter 'o' for Office " + "Clerical, 'f' for Factory, or 's' for Saleperson. Enter 'x' to exit." ); String response= inp.nextLine(); while (!response.toLowerCase().equals("o")&&!response.toLowerCase().equals("f") &&!response.toLowerCase().equals("s")&&!response.toLowerCase().equals("x")){ System.out.print("\nInvalid selection,please enter your choice again:\n"); response=inp.nextLine(); } char choice = response.toLowerCase().charAt( 0 ); switch (choice){ case 'o': System.out.println("Enter your hourly rate:"); double officeRate=inp.nextDouble(); System.out.println("Enter the number of hours worked:"); double officeHours=inp.nextDouble(); totalPay = officeCalc(officeRate,officeHours); taxCalc(totalPay); break; case 'f': System.out.println("How many Widgets did you produce during the week?"); double widgets=inp.nextDouble(); totalPay=factoryCalc(widgets); taxCalc(totalPay); break; case 's': System.out.println("What were your total sales for the week?"); double totalSales=inp.nextDouble(); totalPay=salesCalc(totalSales); taxCalc(totalPay); break; } } public static double taxCalc(double totalPay){ double federal=totalPay*.22; double state =totalPay*.055; double netPay = totalPay - federal - state; federal =federal*Math.pow(10,2); federal =Math.round(federal); federal= federal/Math.pow(10,2); state =state*Math.pow(10,2); state =Math.round(state); state= state/Math.pow(10,2); totalPay =totalPay*Math.pow(10,2); totalPay =Math.round(totalPay); totalPay= totalPay/Math.pow(10,2); netPay =netPay*Math.pow(10,2); netPay =Math.round(netPay); netPay= netPay/Math.pow(10,2); System.out.printf("\nTotal Pay \t: %1$.2f.\n", totalPay); System.out.printf("State W/H \t: %1$.2f.\n", state); System.out.printf("Federal W/H : %1$.2f.\n", federal); System.out.printf("Net Pay \t: %1$.2f.\n", netPay); return totalPay; } public static double officeCalc(double officeRate,double officeHours){ double overtime=0; if (officeHours>=40) overtime = officeHours-40; else overtime = 0; if (officeHours >= 40) officeHours = 40; double otRate = officeRate * 1.5; double totalPay= (officeRate * officeHours) + (otRate*overtime); return totalPay; } public static double factoryCalc(double widgets){ double totalPay=widgets*.35 +300; return totalPay; } public static double salesCalc(double totalSales){ double totalPay = totalSales * .05 + 500; return totalPay; } }

  Read the article

• Judge Orders Takedown of Rogue ISP

  Federal judge seals the fate of 3FN, a corrupt Internet service provider under assault from the Federal Trade Commission for an alarming array of online criminal activity.

  Read the article

• Welcome to the Oracle FedApps blog

  - by jeffrey.waterman

  Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Congratulations, you have stumbled upon Oracle’s newest blog: The Federal Applications Blog. Periodically I plan to provide some insight into how Oracle’s application solutions are being applied, or how they can be applied, within the Federal Government. If you are a user of, or just interested in, Oracle’s applications in the Federal space and have questions/topics you would like to see addressed in this blog, please post a comment. So bear with me as I take a bit of time to refine the content, look and feel of this blog. http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/public-sector/038044.htm http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/public-sector/038046.htm -- JMW

  Read the article

• What register state is saved on a context switch in Linux?

  - by federal

  Where in Linux would you look to find out what registers are saved on a context switch? I'm wondering, for example, if it is safe to use FP or vector registers in kernel-mode driver code (mostly interested in x86-64 and ARM, but I'm hoping for an architecture-independent answer).

  Read the article

• FTC reviewing Google's AdMob acquisition

  Federal antitrust regulators are reportedly looking into Google's $750 million acquisition of mobile advertising network AdMob.

  Read the article

• Updated Payroll Tax Liability Formula for Dynamics GP

  - by Ryan McBee

  Prior to the latest Payroll Update for Great Plains, you could do an audit check of the Payroll Tax Liability GP calculation by simply taking Federal Tax Witholding + Fica Medicare Withholding times 2 + Fica SSN times 2.  As you probably know by now, the Employers portion of FICA is 6.2% and the Employers portion has been reduced to 4.2%. However, I have had a number of clients contact me and say this formula is no longer applicable and have asked for a revised formula.  The new formula is described below and ties out to a sample Payroll Run using Fabrikam.   As you can see from above, the prior formula is not applicable and the new audit check is as follows; Federal Tax WH  $                  6,655.17   Employee Medicare  $                     408.47   Employees SS  $                  1,746.54   Employer Medicare  $                     408.47   Employer SS  $                  1,746.55 (FICA Owned – FICA Medicare WH)       Total Tax Liability  $               10,965.20   I have talked with Microsoft and at this time, they have no intent on modifying the report to split out the employer (6.2%) and employee (4.2%) FICA portions.

  Read the article

• Obama Budget Boosts R&D, Security, Cloud Efforts

  White House budget proposal carries funding for new research, shoring up digital infrastructure, streamlining federal computing operations.

  Read the article

• Obama Budget Boosts R&D, Security, Cloud Efforts

  White House budget proposal carries funding for new research, shoring up digital infrastructure, streamlining federal computing operations.

  Read the article

• Get to Know a Candidate (1 of 25): Tom Hoefling–America’s Party

  - by Brian Lanham

  DISCLAIMER: This is not a post about “Romney” or “Obama”. This is not a post for whom I am voting.  Information sourced for Wikipedia. If you recall, on Sunday I blogged about not voting against a candidate and, instead, voting for a candidate.  As promised, this is the first post of 25. Meet Tom Hoefling of America’s Party In addition to being America’s Party nominee, he’s also the national chairman of the party.  Mr. Hoefling also served as the political director for Alan Keyes’ political group America’s Revival.  He is a representative for the American Conservative Coalition.  Mr. Hoefling is on the ballot in:  CA, CO, FL and is a qualified write-in candidate in IN. America’s Party This party was originally known as “America’s Independent Party” and considers itself conservative. The following describes their standing on specific issues. * Tax Reform – The party seeks to reform the tax structure by advocating the repeal of the 16th Amendment, and despite the fact that many members support the FairTax, the platform remains open on what to replace the Federal income tax with. * Other - The party supports the Federal Marriage Amendment being added to the U.S. Constitution. It is also pro-life on abortion. Learn more about Tom Hoefling and America’s Party on Wikipedia.

  Read the article

• Get to Know a Candidate (10 of 25): Tom Stevens–Objectivist Party

  - by Brian Lanham

  DISCLAIMER: This is not a post about “Romney” or “Obama”. This is not a post for whom I am voting. Information sourced for Wikipedia. Stevens is an American professor, attorney, politician and blogger. He is the founder and chairman of the Objectivist Party and was that party's nominee for President in the 2008 and 2012 United States Presidential elections. He is the party's presidential nominee in the 2012 election as well. He is also the founder of the Personal Freedom Party of New York. Stevens was the first vice chairman of the political party Boston Tea Party. He resigned from that position in 2008. In 2010, he announced the formation of the Personal Freedom Party of New York. Stevens runs the blog site Liberty Lion. He is a graduate of New York University and Hofstra University School of Law. Stevens is on the ballot in CO, and FL. The Objectivist Party is a political party in the United States that seeks to promote Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism in the political realm. The party was formed on February 2, 2008 by Thomas Stevens; the date was chosen to coincide with Rand's birthday. The party believes in the repeal of the federal income tax; thus the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The income tax would then be replaced by a Flat Tax of 10% or Federal sales tax. The party supports the 2nd Amendment, but only as long as violent criminals are not permitted to own any weapon. Learn more about Tom Stevens and Objectivist Party on Wikipedia.

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >