Press "Enter" to skip to content

Provost’s Faculty Tracking Software to be just like Concur, but for Tenure and Promotion

What could go wrong? You’d think that after disasters like Concur, shared services, centralized purchasing, and Commencement, our Johnson Hall leadership would step back for a moment and think about what they’re trying to do. Nope. As a wise women once sang,

I ain’t no psychiatrist, I ain’t no doctor with degrees
But, it don’t take too much high IQ’s 
To see what you’re doing to me

Interim Provost Janet Woodruff-Borden and Interim VP for Academic Affairs Karen Ford have attempted to deceive the faculty and Senate by telling us that the impetus for the this latest scheme is a desire to better account for service, or make it easier for them to nominate faculty for awards.

They have refused to share the draft RFP to provide for faculty input, but the final version is now posted, and it’s obvious that the administration wants a system that will give our Johnson Hall leadership the ability to prepare real-time reports on what faculty are doing, down to the micro-acheivement.

Faculty, of course, will be tasked with the burden of inputting it all. RFP here. A snippet:

1) Data and System

  1. a)  Describe the solution’s ability to pull baseline information from internal UO data systems includingBanner and the Operational Data Store (ODS) to identify and report:
    i) Promotion and tenure eligibility including years of credit for service ii) Promotion and tenure clock information
    iii) Other review eligibility and timelines
    iv) Leave tracking including sabbatical
    v) Endowed positions
    vi) Administrative appointments
    vii) Joint appointments
    viii) Merit-based information
    ix) Retention-based information
  2. b)  Vendor must be able to provide a 60-day, onsite live trial environment “sandbox” (for configuration and usability) prior to an agreement to purchase.
  3. c)  Describe the solution’s ability to scan/scrape/import CV data for a lookback of 5+ years (preferably up to 30+ years) from various sources and diverse file formats. This includes describing the solution’s ability to reallocate/reorganize/recategorize CV information.
  4. d)  Describe the solution’s ability to allow for review, verification, and modification processes of faculty activity data. This also includes the solution’s ability to lock specific data fields (e.g., tenure timelines should only be editable for certain roles) to prevent modification, the ability to allow for modification annotations to be made within the system and available to administrators, and the ability to have context added separate to the data itself (e.g., a notes field).
  1. e)  Describe the solution’s ability to designate role accounts and access information to various levels of administration, faculty, and staff. This should include information on the types of data viewable in various roles, reports and metadata viewable in various roles, and workflow processes viewable in various roles. Discuss if these roles can be configured according to our UO structure and needs.
  2. f)  Describe the solution’s ability to import data into a standardized CV and produce standardized/customized outputs such as reports. Solution should have the ability to suppress or lock specific fields of data per UO policy and Oregon law. This includes describing the solution’s ability to import/export, display, and draw reports from a variety of data types (qualitative and quantitative) as well as on a variety of data fields/categories. Some are listed below for reference:
    i) Teaching
    ii) Research and creative output
    iii) Grants
    iv) Patents and entrepreneurial work
    v) Honors and awards
    vi) Memberships (professional organizations)
    vii) Editorial work
    viii) Service
    ix) Equity and Inclusion
    x) Endowments
    xi) Joint appointments
  3. g)  Describe how the solution supports peer review materials, currently maintained data systems such as federal grant award information, student evaluation survey data, etc.
  4. h)  Describe the solution’s ability to track and show (meta)data details such as date of entry and modification. This might include reappointment, joint appointment, and administrative appointment information.
  5. i)  Describe the solution’s ability for data to be searchable, filterable, and queried as needed around a variety of categories including faculty types, promotion/tenure dates, awards and honors, rank/administrative role, joint appointments, grant dollars, etc.
  6. j)  Describe the solution’s ability to handle and differentiate between no or missing data, null or zeroed out data, etc. This might also include capturing course release data, promotion-and-tenure clock extensions, etc. that would not present normally within a system.
  7. k)  Describe the solution’s ability to export or integrate its data, including any APIs or ODBC access, and any limitations to data via export/API/ODBC.


  1. Anonymous 04/21/2023

    Jesus you professors complain a lot. Just because you got a PhD you think your pay shouldn’t depend on the same kinds of productivity metrics as an Uber driver?

    • dog 04/21/2023

      metrics have to be fair and subject to unbiased measurement- something I have always found lacking at the UO departmental

    • honest Uncle Bernie 04/21/2023

      Well, Anon, really, yes.

  2. Publius 04/23/2023


  3. Facepalm on this one 04/24/2023

    1. How many years of GE raises will this unnecessary software eat up?
    2. How can this possibly be a priority when the University has millions of dollars of deferred maintenance including some horrid classrooms?
    3. Fix the damn student evaluations first. Garbage in, garbage out….
    4. How many years of GE raises will this unnecessary software eat up?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *