# INTRODUCTION he actors of the university have centered on the need Reporting, others need however to analyze more precisely the data (University maker). It is therefore to explain the anomalies and their origins, such as causing problems for the disappearance of students during their university life without any qualifications. It is also to highlight extreme events in the very structure of a numerical result. An analysis of data reveals disparities and to explain phenomena apparently normal. In this logic, the Drill down is a method to visualize the detail information component, the opposite, the Drill up scrolls upward through the hierarchy of a dimension while the Drill through is to see other indicators to explain information. Starting from a 3D cube, it is possible to aggregate rotating along one dimension (pivot); we obtain a lattice of views (computable in SQL). The table below contains the main principles of the algebra of cubes. We will prove that multivariate analysis is to model data along several axes. The OLAP cube means the analytical technology that applies to this model of representation. This notion that rubs predictive analytics as designated by the Anglicism Data mining. # II. # HYPOTHESES One starts by modeling [4] upstream actors taking into account the specifications and expectations of each of them, namely: ? From motivation to the job involvement: motivation Thus appears as part of a directed behavior and completed (goal oriented). ? Training required by the actors in institutions in the university year. ? Etc...... Given this situation, it is to correlate between the needs of University actors [1], [2] and those of the teacher and those of administration. Infect, we are faced with a situation of looking for satisfaction with a specific university. Indeed for a university, it is more about positioning and visibility of the organization. The company seeks a positioning performance level of its capital and the university aims to achieve a quality and a high ranking both domestically and internationally. The company seeks customer satisfaction; the university seeks to satisfy its stakeholders. Customer satisfaction in business is formalized in terms of costs. Satisfaction of the actors in university is renowned for meeting their needs. The main objective of this work is to provide a simple, detailed and complete enough to meet the real needs of the university decision-maker (in [5], [6]) in terms of automatic adaptation needs and priorities of the indicator is to make a multidimensional model: Given the scope of this project which combines university: students, professors, administrative domains and operating [4] in various disciplines in terms of their thematic, structural information we propose is based on the model [5]of a warehouse data, taking into account the different trades. For example a person may have different responsibilities: it can have the status of responsible teaching. We discuss the data on different levels by actors. We distinguish three levels: the actor, the administrative level and educational level. ? The level player makes an initial typology of actors around 3 classes, showing students, teachers and administrators. ? The educational level is used to identify bases 'referents' correlated with previously identified actors: foundation courses geared towards the students, baselines for serving teachers and basic rules and regulations for the administration of destination. ? The administrative level census data on the administrative situation of the student actor, data on the administrative situation of the actor and teacher data from administrative and financial management of students, teachers and training relevant to the administrative actor. We illustrate by a diagram that data relating to the actors, supplemented by existing. After the consolidation of the formula 1, we obtain: The portfolio of the source (S) (in [1], [2])defines all the activities to be performed during one cycle by each university players. Category (C) defines the three actors of the university: Student, Teacher, and Administrator. Aggregation (A) defines the needs of each player for a graduate level. The following model is then obtained: Table 1 : Role, Activities, Aggregation of Actors Model of application is to justify the balance between all the activities of all actors and their aggregations at the end of a graduate level. In this context, we present, as an application of indicators defined by the makers of the university and programmed by technical information system making the institution in [4] order to improve the performance of each actor. To better understand this approach, we are using a graphic to show the equilibrium relationship between each actor and their activities at an undergraduate level [6] and its aggregation, taking into account the multiple observations to develop our model. In the middle of our development that we present the following scheme which provide an overview of both synthetic and cross. # Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology Volume XII Issue XIII Version I # Year The classic cases to verify data administration are redundancy, synonymy, duplicates (duplicates), the inconsistencies according to the origin or time, unreliability, failure to reuse and non-corporate knowledge. The problem of data quality [`7](inhomogeneous) has become central to the design of a data warehouse. The risks are to use data 'dirty', to make bad decisions, lack of relevant information, to misjudge the impact of a decision or fail to detect an abnormal situation. We must therefore ensure respect some essential criteria in order to have quality data. ? Completeness Expected values are present or not. ? Conformity Coherence, contradiction, format, syntax ? Correct Prediction, level of detail ... ? Credibility reputation, reliability ... ? Accessibility ,Availability of SI source, access rights, connectors ... ? Relevance, usefulness importance, value-added ... ? Freshness, news age, persistence / volatility ... # ? Comprehension, interpretation understanding, meaning, origin ... Emphasize that there is a difference between Data ware housing and Master Data Management. A data warehouse consolidates data from multiple sources to feed business intelligence applications, reporting and analysis. As MDM, Data Warehouse consolidates the data from source systems but conversely it is not intended to refer to these sources changed data. Only MDM ensures data synchronization between the repository and source systems / targets attached. Any kind of information value-added used repeatedly in key processes and institutions shared by multiple applications can be included in the scope of MDM between the data and thus represents a candidate for Master Data Management (see the examples in Figure 7: Example the Repository Actor Single (UAR): a strategic MDM declination for the university). # CONCLUSION To implement this application, we went through three main phases. The first is the theoretical part that needs to have a model that is able to respond in an academic setting known for its complexity (different actors, the wealth of data, non-uniform data ...). This requires a mathematical model defining simple relationships between the actors, their activities and their aggregations. The second phase focuses on collecting data and designing a multi-dimensional. The third used as 'data about data', or reference data in the context of data aggregation and facilitate crossanalyzes. These Meta data (accessibility) used to describe the data used in analysis and decision making as the exact definition of the data (semantics), the source data (date, origin), how they are calculated, aggregated (calculation rules), business rules relating thereto, the process of extraction, transformation and loading that has been implemented (ETL). In the case of intelligence, so there are tools for extracting and managing Meta data that are so flexible -that is to say, scalable -and play an important role in the establishment. Data within data warehouses must be good quality, clean, but also described by meta data to be managed best by the Management System Database to provide the most relevant results possible. ![a) The model SIAG According to the model developed SIAG within our team; we observe several processes in the T Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology Volume XII Issue XIII Version I retrieval which we leverage for our reflections. The model represents a situation EIAG information retrieval that involves cognitive phases following: Discover the world of information => Study The application of basic information => Item The analysis of the basis of information => Analysis Resolution based on different choices => Gloss This model uses action verbs to describe different stages of information seeking: to investigate, item, analyze and gloss. These words evoke the underlying functionality of the information system, so as to satisfy the end user. We leverage this model to analyze the situations of our various stakeholders (policy makers and institutions of the presidency of the university) in a research or production information. III. Implementation a) Actors in the University](image-2.png "") ![Beginning of the University Cycle: ? The portfolio administrative actors is the first actor at a time t: Administrative actor (PA)= {Ci (1 ?i?3) ; Aj(1?j?6)} ? The actor Teacher portfolio is the second player at time t+?t: Actor Teacher PE) = {Ci (3?i?8); Aj (6?j?11)} ? The Student Portfolio actor is the No. 3 player at a time t+?t+1 :Actor Student (PT)= {Si (8?i?13) ; Aj (11?j?16)} This model is then obtained: End of University Cycle: At the end of the cycle, the three actors are involved: ? The Teacher actor portfolio is the first speaker at the end of the academic cycle: Teacher Actor (PE)={Si(29 ?i?31) ;Aj (37?j?39)} ? The Student actor Portfolio is the second place at the end of the academic cycle: Student Actor (PT)= {Si (31?i?35) ; Aj (42?j?44)} ? The administrative actors portfolio is the last speaker at the end of the academic cycle: Administrator Actor (PA)= {Si (35 ?i?37) ; Aj (39?j?42)}](image-3.png "") 1![Figure 1 : Architecture of our model](image-4.png "Figure 1 :") 2![Figure 2 : Example of data integration, Source](image-5.png "Figure 2 :") 3![Figure 3 : Actor Single Repository (UAR) in Master Data Management](image-6.png "Figure 3 :") ![N. et David A.," Model for the operation of a decision problem: a tool for decision support in a context of economic intelligence ", IERA 2003, Nancy. 7. Thiery O., Ducreau A., Bouaka N., David A., " Drive An Organization: Strategic Information To The Modeling of The User Application To The Field Of Hrm ", Grefige, 2004. 8. Samia Aitouche, Abdelghafour Kaanit And Kinza Mouss , Proposal of A Support Decision Support Using The Method Gimsi, For Better Reactivity In A Disturbed Environment, International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing ICIEM'10, May, 9-10, 2010, Batna, Algeria. 9. Ann Chervenak, The data grid: Towards an architecture for the distributed management and analysis of large scientific datasets, Journal of Network and Computer Applications Volume 23, Issue 3, July 2000, Pages 187-200 © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology Volume XII Issue XIII Version I](image-7.png "") © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) * Modeling Resources Steering University LOubedda AMir Khalfaoui acte SIL' 08 SIL' 08 2008 * Human Resource Management of breast Moroccan Universities LOubedda AMir .MKhalfaoui « ; EncgAgadir 2009 * Methods and tools for designing business process training systems OlivierBistorin 2007 University Paul Verlaine-Metz these de Doctorat * Process modeling of a training system OlivierBistorin ThibandMonteiro ClaudePourcel Proceedings 1ère Conférence Internationale sur l'Ingénierie des Systémes de Formation 1ère Conférence Internationale sur l'Ingénierie des Systémes de FormationColombie octobre 2007 * Intelligence in academic settings including the user modeling FPeguiron ADavid OThiery IERA 2003