Effective Involvement of Shareholders in Key Activities

1
Effective Involvement of Shareholders in Key
Activities

• SACRAO 2009
• February 10, 2009
• Session T1.10

2
The University of Virginia

• Founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson
• Enrollment 13,762 undergraduate, 6,629 graduate
  professional
• 2008 Budget 2.2 billion total 1.2 billion
  academic division
• Endowment 4.0 billion (last time we checked)
• 21,511 applications for 3,170 UG slots
• 6 year graduation rate 93.1

3
(No Transcript)
4
Background

• Implemented Oracle 11.0.3 Finance in July 2001
• Implemented Oracle 11.0.3 Payroll and HR in
  October 2002
• In March 2006, selected Oracle (former
  PeopleSoft) Campus Solutions 9.0 for Student
  Information System

5
Student System Project (SSP)

• Project Team 46 team members plus 7 additional
  UVa personnel allocated to the project at varying
  levels of involvement
• Consulting Team 16 full-time and additional
  consultants
• Timeline Deployment activities began 1/2007
  phased go-live of modules concludes in fall 2009

6
Early involvement

• Silo Spotting

7
Workshops

• Goal
• Develop broad models for global business
  processes that help define requirements in
  advance of selecting a system vendor
• Objectives
• Review processes and operational issues at a high
  level
• Develop high-level understanding of key issues
  that
• Support the vision set for by UVa leadership
• Address key current operational issues
• Identify strategic issues for consideration by
  UVa leadership

8
Workshops Process Flows
9
Workshops Process Flows
10
Workshops Strategic Issues
11
Workshops Academic Issues
12
Requirements gathering

• How Unique is Unique, Really?

13
Requirements Gathering

• Objective Streamline and automate the system
  planning and selection process
• Decision Director, from Advantiv, a web-based
  collaboration and decisions support tool
• 75 HE projects 200 institutions over 45,000
  participants

14
Requirements Gathering

• Did not want to reinvent the requirements wheel
• Started with a comprehensive set of best-practice
  requirements
• Review, reorganize, and modify as necessary
• Wanted to involve stakeholders
• Stakeholder buy-in and support is critical
• Must be easy for stakeholders to participate
• Goals completeness, quality, speed

15
Decision Director
16
Timeline and Results

• Requirements Gathering Timeline
• Preparation 6/25-9/24
• Stakeholder Input 9/25-10/19
• Validation 10/20-10/29
• Requirements Gathering Results
• Input from 155 people
• 2,523 functional/technical requirements
• Foundation for RFI and vendor evaluation

17
Continued Review

• Process Mapping
• Created Visio diagrams of all business processes
• Tollgating
• Reviewed diagrams, contingency plans, etc., with
  stakeholders and governance groups.
• Requirements Review
• Constantly review Decision Director requirements
  list to update how critical and important needs
  are being met

18
Strategic Site visits

• Learning from Others

19
Why Travel?

• Learn
• Various vendorsstrengths and shortcomings
• Evolution of project structures and timelines at
  other institutions
• Gather primary lessons learned
• Create resource network to use during the
  implementation
• Involve key stakeholders

20
Who Should Travel?
21
Lessons Learned

• Executive commitment and visible support is of
  paramount importance for project success.
• Strategic policy and system-based decision making
  is required for project success.
• Regular communication with appropriate
  administrators regarding policy and system issues
  is an effective risk mitigation strategy.

22
Managing Involvement

• Stakeholder Structure and Organizational Tools

23
Stakeholder Structures

• Governance Groups
• Executive Sponsorship Presidents Cabinet
• Institutional Policy Makers Vice Presidents
  Designees
• Academic Policy Makers Deans Designees
• Advisory Groups
• System Advisors
• Faculty Advisors
• Student Advisors
• Other
• Local Project Groups
• Issues of Common Interest (involving IT
  organization, etc.)
• UREG/SSP, SCPS, Financial Issues, etc.
• Student Lifecycle

24
Tools
25
Continuing to Communicate

• Structure for Going Forward

26
Communicate Wisely

• Choose Wisely!
• Key offices must be represented
• Size groups wisely too many people at once
  doesnt work
• Need people who know how things work, but also
  people thinking of how things might work
• Beware the toxic participants oftentimes,
  youre stuck with them

27
Communicate Wisely

• Be Patient
• Everyone wants (needs) to be heard
• Groups need time to coalesce and compromise
• Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
• Policy and procedure changes cant be
  communicated too much
• Training, advertising, e-mail, etc.all can help
• People are inclined to trust you build on past
  relationships with your office

28
Policy Support

• Deans Designees
• Policy decisions
• School-level communication
• New programs and degrees
• Student Lifecycle
• Procedural changes
• Information sharing
• Common communication

29
Infrastructure Support

• Draw down consultants
• End date of 12/2009
• Expect to join with Integrated System Deployment
  Support
• Support upgrades and future modifications
• Help Desk

30
Conclusions

• Involve stakeholders early and often
• Encourage search for commonalities
• Let stakeholders learn along with you
• Set up structures and tools to facilitate
  continued stakeholder input and ownership
• Share info on new programs and policy

31
Questions?

• Robert LeHeupTeam Lead, Student Records and
  Academic AdvisementUVa Student System
  Projectrdl9e_at_virginia.edu