Process Model

draw.io

Athletic Scheduling Process Model The primary objective of our team project is to devise a more comprehensive system for informing professors of athlete scheduling conflicts. Our business process model entails four primary actors, although there are many other secondary actors that play a role in the actual process. To come up with an efficient method, we must examine the first process. The process begins with the Athletic Director (AD), Leonard Trevino, meeting with other athletic directors from the athletic conference to coordinate game schedules. This step is completed in advance to come up with a schedule that works well for all parties. For example, competitions and games for Fall 2018 are typically set by June of 2018. Moreover, the schedules are set so far in advance, they are subject to change. The conference representatives employ a data repository with intentions of establishing the master schedule far enough in advance,. The AD then runs the preliminary schedule passed the head coach of each sports team for deliberation. From there, a decision can be made on whether to approve or reject the schedule. If rejected, the AD has to coordinate with the other conference directors to revise the schedule. However, if it is approved then the head coach distributes the schedule amongst the participants (athletes) of each team. Once the athletes receive their specific schedule, it is their obligation to get their professor’s approval via hard-copy signature. Often times this activity requires waiting for a returned document. At any point in a given business process, waiting can be viewed as inefficient. After the schedule is signed acknowledging that the professor was informed of the class conflicts, they have the choice to keep the schedule for their records, or return it to the athlete. This decision, as it stands in the current process, then determines which party is responsible. For example, if the professor keeps the schedule then they have assumed responsibility for keeping track of when athletes will be absent from class. The professor then add the schedules to their personal hard-copy data repository. Conversely, if athletes receive the return copy, then it is their responsibility to inform the professor on/before the date of the competition. This step concludes the process, yet if there is a revision in the schedule, there are currently no official procedure to inform a professor. Our objective is to eliminate the second decision, which requires a hard copy of the schedule, in the new process. By streamlining this process, athletes will assume full responsibility, and the professor will have a digital schedule that is both easily accessible and accurate. The current system of professors signing and keeping track of a hard-copy is antiquated and inefficient. There are many flaws to requiring a signed hard-copy, for example, the probability of that piece of paper getting misplaced is quite likely. However, if a technological platform is implemented then it becomes easier for the information to be analyzed and shared from the athlete to the student. Sources Kroenke, D. M., Boyle, R. J., & Poatsy, M. A. (2017). MIS essentials(4th ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY, NY: Pearson Education.