SIS Implementation Project: The Way We Work


  • Members of the EC will never use ad hominem arguments in discussions, whether in the group or in private. They will extend the same respect and assumption of goodwill to others that they extend to themselves.
  • Expertise matters. One still needs to be able to convince the other members of the committee, but due deference to domain expertise is needed.
  • If any issue is considered critical to one college, it is critical to all. We do not marginalize a request because it is only critical to one college.


  • Trust and empower the people on the ground level to make decisions. Allow the Functional Implementation Groups (FIGs) to build consensus and respect the decisions they reach.
  • At the same time, ensure that such decisions are made consultatively, i.e., that FIGs have had the opportunity to receive feedback from others, think through the wider implications of their decisions, and discuss their final decisions with key stakeholders.


  • The default mode for everyone involved is to share, seek feedback, inform and seek information.
  • We will collaborate with end users as often and as early as possible.

Solve disagreements

  • Minor unresolved issues will be put on a parking lot for a pre-determined period (1 month, 3 months, 6 months).
  • There will be a long-term parking lot where disputed matters that do not limit system functionality, as well as optional items that are desirable but not necessary or urgent, can await resolution until after the SIS has gone live.
  • When disagreements about important matters cannot be resolved by the FIGs, they move to CORE. If CORE cannot solve them, they will be taken to the Executive Committee (EC). If the EC cannot decide, the matter will be taken to the relevant intercollegiate governance committee—ADC, BFAC, or ITSC. Only under the rarest and most difficult of circumstances, will the decision be taken to the Presidents’ Council.