ctcLink Enhancement Requests

The Enhancement Request submission process is outlined in the ctcLink Reference Center Enhancement Request Process and Form guide. 

The process and forms may be updated as the operational governance model evolves.

1. Determine whether a change should be submitted as an Enhancement Request.
2. Determine if your request aligns with the ctcLink Guiding Principles.
3. Secure an Enhancement Request (ER) sponsor (e.g. commission chair, data governance co-chair).

Enhancement Request Form

Enhancement Requests are only one source of work for the SBCTC ctcLink Customer Support and Application Services teams.

Ongoing work efforts are prioritized and balanced based on:

• Level of urgency/impact
• Scheduled maintenance
• PeopleSoft product updates and releases
• External mandates (federal, state and agency policy)
• Available resource capacity

The ctcLink Enhancement Request Status list is now available in the ctcLink Reference Center.

See where each Enhancement Request is in the governance review process, approval status, and/or any other actions taken.

• Approved Enhancement Requests - Not yet Deployed
• Approved and Deployed Enhancement Requests
• Mandated Items - No WG Approval Required  (Notification/FYI Only)
• No Action Taken - Canceled or Denied Enhancement Requests

All Enhancement Requests will be stored in the Service Desk (SolarWinds) ticketing system under a NEW Request Type “Enhancement Request.” This is a change from simply tracking the Enhancement Request submission as a Service Request.

• Those submitted to the ctcLink Working Group from May 2018 through today.
• Submitted via service tickets
  • The Project Management Office has scoured the ticketing system for any enhancement requests not already submitted to the ctcLink Working Group.
  • ctcLink Customer Services teams will continue to add any new submissions as they come in.
• External and internal mandates (federal, state and SBCTC agency policy)

There are many reasons, but here are just a few possibilities:

• It might never have been formally submitted in the ticketing system as an enhancement request with the appropriate form.
• It was submitted, but not extracted from the ticketing system and sent to ctcLink Working Group.
• Some items fall into other categories:
  • Remediation - Certain items needed an overhaul (remediation) after the initial 2015 go-live but were put on hold until they could be addressed after full implementation. For example, Satisfactory Academic Progress, which was escalated and is in motion.
  • Scope Transfer - Certain requirements which were “in scope” went unfulfilled or were not fully completed during the ctcLink Project implementation. Those 250 items were transferred from the Project implementation team to the SBCTC IT/Support organization for review.
    • For example, financial aid Mass Packaging, which has now been escalated and work efforts are underway. 
    • ctcLink requirements to be considered for de-scope are scheduled for specific ctcLink Working Group meeting agendas in small batches for review, vote, and decision.