Transcript Project spectrum Scope/Overview

Intricate Lessons in
Project Management
Marie Dockter
(Saint Louis University)
Ann Harbor & John Wasileski
(The University of Memphis)
Profiles
Profile & Cohort 1A Group
Tennessee Higher
Education Commission
Tennessee Board
of Regents
Community
Colleges (13)
Universities (6)
The University
of Memphis
Chattanooga State TCC
Middle Tennessee
State University
Columbia State CC
Volunteer State CC
Southwest TCC
University of
Tennessee System
Technology
Centers (26)
The University of Memphis
• A comprehensive doctoral
extensive university:
More than 3,000 degrees
awarded annually
Classified by Carnegie as
“Community Engage”
– 15 bachelor’s degrees in more
than 50 majors and 70
concentrations
– Master’s degrees in over 45
subjects
– Doctoral degrees in 21
disciplines
– Juris Doctor (law degree)
– Specialist degree in education
– Online degree program
– Spring 2007 student
enrollment – 17,411
– 800 Faculty
– 1500 Staff
Project Governance
Systemic Implementation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cohort-Based
Central management/ DBA structure
System-wide software procurement
Third-party project coordination
Weekly conference calls
Monthly meetings of project managers
Remote technical assistance during “go-live”
Systemic Issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vendor stretched too thin
Vendor unable to meet timetables
Emphasis on “one size fits all”
Unwieldy conference calls
Inability to air problems
Slow delivery of lessons-learned
University Implementation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cross-disciplinary teams
Executive support of team activities
Structure to facilitate problem solving
Frequent interface with Executive Council
Frequent communications concerning project status
Teams with skilled leadership
University Issues
Time away from regular duties
Inadequate staff to get the job done
Too few people for backfill
Slow acceptance of cross-disciplinary teams
Lack of purpose for the Steering Committee
Infrequent executive participation
Project Preparations
Funding for spectrum
Three-year budget from two sources:
Year-end funds
TAF (Student Technology Access
Fees)
ERP Failure Rate
Between 60% and 70% of ERP projects are
considered to be failures. Causes shown in survey
conducted by EDS …
36%
32%
26%
18%
12%
8%
Not
enough
planning
Poor coordination
of materials/
resources
Technical
Insufficient
problems
resources
Communication
problems
Misallignment
of expectations
Preparing for
Implementation
• Hired high-quality DBAs
• Implemented a relational database project (the Data
Warehouse) several years in advance
• Developed relational technology and project
management tools
• Retooled positions as they became vacant
• Extensive training and development
Preparing for Implementation
– cont’d
• Presentations to campus groups re “fully digitized
campus”
• Advanced portal implementation to facilitate
communication and product familiarity
• Identified ITD space for training and work
• Assignment of work and training spaces
Link to U of M Project Inventory
Key Decisions
Plain Vanilla – What????
 Implementation of the enterprise system without
modifications
 Process redesign before project implementation
 Employees wedded to old processes
 Aligning Banner work processes with the University’s
Managing a Shared Database
?
?
?
?
Who owns the data?
Who should understand the data?
How many points of entry are there?
Can we come to consensus on privileges for use
of the data?
? What concerns do we have about security?
Training
and
Reporting
• Make decisions on the front end!!
• Shared responsibility??
– Collaborative structure v. hierarchical structure
• Levels of need
–
–
–
–
Sophisticated (IT-level)
Advanced User
Functional User
Occasional User
When Banner Won’t Do…
 Dealing with user perspectives -- real and
perceived
 Adequately analyzing Banner and other
products
 Integrating “bolt-ons”
Project spectrum Scope/Overview
Project Purposes
▲Provide better quality of service
▲Replace aging batch systems
▲Modify business processes
▲Develop a unified digital campus
Link to spectrum portal & website
Workflow: Going it Alone
 Processes too campus-specific for systemwide development or implementation
 Opportunity for “after the fact” process
redesign
Digital Campus Components
In addition to spectrum, U of M is anticipating
implementing and integrating all of the following within
three years:
+Information Commons architecture
+New library management system
+New course management system
+Tier II Help Desk for the entire state of
Tennessee
Reflections
Successes
– U of M’s cross-functional teams
– The support from the Executives
– Recognized as lead dog by cohort group
– Staff rose to the occasion and surpassed every
expectation
– Project co-leads with complementary roles
You‘ve
gotta be
kidding!
– Poorly constructed contract
– Failure of vendor to provide adequate “how does it
work?” information
– Aggressive implementation schedule
– And…
•
•
•
•
Portal implementation
Content management migration
HelpDesk migration
Integrated Library system installation
Culture Shocks
– How deeply entrenched some processes are
– Gee! You really do need DBAs
– Gosh! Relational databases are more difficult to
manage
– “Cooperate? Us?”
– But I am cooperating – you just don’t understand!!
– Are our employees going to make it through this?
– Will our units have a better understanding of the
University and each other having gone through this
process?
Contemplations
• What is the biggest issue facing your areas with respect
to spectrum/Banner/ERP implementation at this time?
• Do you think the university will be better off as a result of
having implemented this new system?
• In what ways can we make services better via the new
technology?
• What have we learned about ourselves through this
process?
• What things would we do differently the next time we do a
project of this magnitude?
• Questions?
• Suggestions?
• Experiences?