7-Enterprise Institutional Analytics and Data Platform SON-SOW.docx

Statement of Needs/Scope of Work

SLCC is seeking an enterprise institutional analytics and data platform and associated implementation services. The initial scope of work is focused on implementing the selected platform and integrating SLCC’s key enterprise systems to enable governed, repeatable institutional reporting and analytics. Offerors may also propose optional services to migrate, modernize, or rationalize existing reports and dashboards.

A. Project Objectives

· Implement a centralized, governed analytical data environment that serves as SLCC’s institutional system of record for analytics and reporting.

· Enable self-service analytics for non-technical users while embedding role-based access controls, data governance, metadata, and lineage.

· Deliver priority institutional analytics across student/enrollment, finance, HR, and institutional effectiveness domains.

B. In-Scope Systems for Initial Integration The implementation must support integration (ingestion and governed modeling) from the following enterprise systems, using vendor-provided connectors and/or documented integration approaches. SLCC will work with the selected vendor to confirm integration sequencing during implementation.

· Ellucian Banner (Student, Finance, and Human Resources) as a primary system of record

· Canvas LMS

· EAB Navigate 360 (analytics and reporting data only; advising workflows/case management are out of scope)

· DegreeWorks

· EnrollmentRx (Salesforce-based)

· Microsoft Power BI / Microsoft Fabric (as downstream BI and analytics tooling, as applicable)

· Legacy/transition reporting sources, including Cognos and the existing home-grown data warehouse/ETL environment (as needed for migration and validation) C. Core Implementation and Delivery Requirements

· Project kickoff, discovery, and implementation plan, including approach, assumptions, timeline, and resource plan.

· Platform provisioning, configuration, and environment setup (e.g., dev/test/prod where applicable).

· Data ingestion and refresh scheduling, including initial historical loads and ongoing refresh (daily or near-real-time where appropriate).

· Data modeling and delivery of governed datasets and metric definitions aligned to institutional reporting needs (e.g., retention, persistence, course success, completion, equity outcomes; finance and HR analytics).

· Security implementation, including FERPA-aligned controls, role-based access control, integration with institutional SSO, and audit logging.

· Metadata, data dictionary, lineage/provenance visibility, and data governance workflows (stewardship, change control for metrics).

· Training, enablement, and documentation for both technical administrators and non-technical consumers (self-service analytics).

· Incremental delivery (“speed to value”) with usable analytics delivered early and expanded in phases.

D. Optional Services (Propose Separately)

· Report migration/modernization: convert, recreate, or rationalize existing reports and dashboards from Cognos, Apex, spreadsheets, Power BI, and/or other legacy tools into the selected platform and/or Power BI using governed datasets.

· Legacy warehouse/ETL transition support: validation, parallel run, reconciliation, and cutover planning.

· Additional system integrations beyond the initial list, including other institutional or departmental systems (as mutually agreed).

E. Offeror Response Instructions (Include in Proposal)

· Describe the proposed implementation approach and recommended phasing (including which systems should be integrated first and why).

· Identify SLCC resource commitments (functional SMEs, technical staff, security/access support) and all dependencies/assumptions.

· Describe integration methods/connectors for each in-scope system and expected refresh cadence.

· Describe delivered analytics content (data models, KPI definitions, sample dashboards/reports) and how governance/lineage is implemented.

· Describe how the solution supports interoperability with Power BI/Microsoft Fabric and APIs for downstream access/automation.

· For any optional report migration/modernization services, provide a clear scope, approach, and pricing model (e.g., per-report, bundled, or time-and-materials), including how the Offeror will assess and prioritize reports for migration.

SLCC anticipates an implementation that is phased and milestone based. The schedule below is provided as a planning framework; Offerors should propose a detailed project plan with recommended sequencing, durations, dependencies, and staffing based on the proposed solution.

High-Level Implementation Expectations (Offeror to propose detailed timeline)

· Baseline project plan, risk/issue log, and implementation schedule submitted and approved

· Data architecture and integration design; confirm refresh cadence targets and environments

· Implement SSO, role-based access control, encryption, and audit logging

· Confirm and implement data governance approach (stewards, approval workflow for metric changes), including metadata/dictionary and lineage approach

· Establish automated refresh and data layers (raw/transformed/curated), as applicable

· Initial dashboards/reports and/or Power BI-ready governed datasets for priority KPIs

· User acceptance testing (UAT) and validation sign-off for initial release

· Enable cohorting, longitudinal analytics, and point-in-time snapshots (as applicable)

· Support model defined (vendor vs. SLCC responsibilities), runbooks, and handoff to steady-state operations

· Stabilization period with issue remediation and agreed acceptance criteria

· Recreate/replace priority reports (Cognos/other) using governed datasets and agreed validation approach

Offerors should identify major risks and dependencies that may affect the schedule (e.g., source system access, security approvals, data quality remediation, and availability of SLCC subject matter experts) and propose mitigations.

Technical Evaluation Criteria (in order of importance)

1. Alignment with requirements (functional, technical, and integration requirements; ability to support required outcomes)

2. Transparency and governance depth (metadata/lineage, data quality, metric definition transparency, governance workflows)

3. Speed to value and sustainability (implementation approach, pre-built higher-ed content/connectors, training/adoption, operational model)

4. Architectural flexibility and future readiness (portability/avoidance of lock-in, interoperability/APIs, scalability, readiness for future ERP transitions)

5. Vendor experience and total cost of ownership (TCO) considerations (higher education/community college experience, Banner experience, staffing model, long-term supportability)