Intricate Lessons in Project Management

1
Intricate Lessons in Project Management

• Marie Dockter
• (Saint Louis University)
• Ann Harbor John Wasileski
• (The University of Memphis)

2
Profiles
3
Profile Cohort 1A Group
4
The University of Memphis

• A comprehensive doctoral extensive university
• 15 bachelors degrees in more than 50 majors and
  70 concentrations
• Masters 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

• More than 3,000 degrees awarded annually
• Classified by Carnegie as Community Engage

5
Project Governance
6
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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
Project Preparations
11
Funding for spectrum

• Three-year budget from two sources
• Year-end funds
• TAF (Student Technology Access Fees)

12
ERP Failure Rate

• Between 60 and 70 of ERP projects are
  considered to be failures. Causes shown in survey
  conducted by EDS

13
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

14
Preparing for Implementation contd

• 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
15
Key Decisions
16
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
  Universitys

17
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?

18
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

19
When Banner Wont Do

• Dealing with user perspectives -- real and
  perceived
• Adequately analyzing Banner and other products
• Integrating bolt-ons

20
Project spectrum Scope/Overview
21
Project Purposes

• Provide better quality of service
• Replace aging batch systems
• Modify business processes
• Develop a unified digital campus

Link to spectrum portal website
22
Workflow Going it Alone

• Processes too campus-specific for system-wide
  development or implementation
• Opportunity for after the fact process redesign

23
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

24
Reflections
25
Successes
Whoo Hoo !

• U of Ms 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

26
Youve gotta be kidding!
Holy Cows!

• 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

27
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 dont
  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?

28
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?

29
Thank You !

• Questions?
• Suggestions?
• Experiences?