Amnesty International case study

13 July 2005 1

Amnesty International case study

Graham Oakes Ltd

13 July 2005 www.grahamoakes.co.uk

making sense of technology2

Agenda

Why joint venture? The challenges How we approached them Questions

I don’t have definitive answers. This is a chance to share experience and learn how to do better next time.

Can’t discuss Amnesty International internal details.



Amnesty International ECMS project Global defender of human rights, formed in 1961

2,000,000 members

80 independent sections

400 staff in International Secretariat in London (mostly)

“Information is our currency” Need to revitalise information management infrastructure in

response to changed strategic model Complex governance, culture, information & technology



Independent consultants bring

Specific expertise Buying the principal, not the trainee or the methodology

Close relationships The person who sells also delivers

Advice and mentoring rather than upselling No incentive to set up a big project or downstream sale

Engaged consultants Doing diverse work, focused on what they enjoy

Low overheads Lower portion of fee goes to offices, shareholders, etc



But there are a number of challenges Mixture of expertise

Many projects require a mix of skills that few individuals can bring

Scale Many projects are too large for an individual Many projects are too risky for an individual

So for a client, the options are Use a larger consultancy after all Engage multiple consultants and then co-ordinate them yourself Engage a “network” of independents



The network model works when you have Communications

Large consultancies have a strong communications and knowledge sharing infrastructure

Modern communications help networks replicate this

Support services Probably the main reason larger consultancies have formed Finance, marketing, IT can all be provided as independent

services

Clear agreements on working practices Clear roles, responsibilities and plans Upfront thinking can turn a weakness into a strength



How did we approach these challenges?

Sep 2004:Invitation to Tender

Oct 2004:Assemble Team

Oct 2004:Bid

Dec 2004:Contract

Jan 2005:Deliver

April 2005:Support



Invitation to Tender

Sep 2004:Invitation to Tender

Key issue:Getting on the list

Network extends our reach

Ad hoc alliance has difficulty doing structured marketing

Formal alliance can consider campaigns Offering/campaign based Alliance based Brand confusion?



Assembling the teamKey issue:

What skills do we need?

Finder makes first approx.

Factors ITT requirements Availability Experience together

Some iteration as settle on joint approach Business strategy Organisational culture Content strategy Technical architecture/systems




Assembling the teamKey issue:

How do we present ourselves?

Options Prime Consortium Individual contracts

Considerations Client comfort Our risk Accreditations

References ISO9000




BiddingKey issue:

Integrated approach

Clear roles & responsibilities Detailed plan & project mgt Clear communication plan Well defined deliverables & IP

Strengthened our bid – more clarity than a single bidder

Took a lot of effort – probably more expensive too…

Oct 2004:Bid



Approach

Small, diverse team of independent experts No vested interest in application or downstream implementation Can “read between the lines” Sensitive to cultural & organisational factors as well as technical Can move quickly while focusing on key areas for AI’s context

Supporting intellectual framework Embeds experience – helps us to move quickly & without gaps Provides basis for key deliverables (risk register, spec., etc)

Open, collaborative, active approach

Skills transfer and ongoing support We want to see people succeed, and to learn ourselves



Framework of existing IP

Risks Lack of focus Missed stakeholders Change management Technology

Audiences End users Content & editorial System admin & management

Business Requirements

Current state Content Technology Business (governance, structure, processes) Change readiness

Requirements RFI Questions RFI Answers Comments

1. Platform requirements

1. Portal (content & service delivery) Do you provide a portal tool or a publishing server as part of your product suite? Select appropriate answer…

2. Search Do you provide search functionality as part of your product suite?Select appropriate answer…

3. Personalisation Do you provide a personalisation tool as part of your product suite? Select appropriate answer…

4. Web Content management Do you provide WCM as part of your product suite? Select appropriate answer…

5. Document management Do you provide DM as part of your product suite? Select appropriate answer…

6. Knowledge Base Do you provide a Knowledge Base tool (or similar) as part of your product suite? Select appropriate answer…

7. Collaboration Do you provide a Collaboration tool as part of your product suite?Select appropriate answer…

8. Digital Asset Management Do you provide a Digital Asset Management tool as part of your product suite? Select appropriate answer…

9. Application & service integration Do you provide a toolkit for EAI? Select appropriate answer…

10. Built-in & optional portal features Do you provide any additional features/tools (not mentioned here) that you think fits Message Labs requirements? Select appropriate answer…

11. Security Do you have a high-end security model? Select appropriate answer…

12. Technology & Infrastructure Please answer the questions below Please open tab to the left and answer questions…

If you answer "yes part of product suite" or "yes - through partner" for any of the questions please open the tab to the left and answer the questions:



PlanHigh Level Plan

Week Commencing

Phase

Phase Objectives

Deliverables

Strategy & VisionInitiation Meeting Workshop Workshop Seminar Bus. case options Business case Seminar & presentations

Document gathering RFI prep

Content Assessment Audience analysis End state content reqts Refine requirements spec Refine reqtsContent analysis End state admin & mgt

Technical Assessment Current state End state architecture Manage RFI Refine plansPrinciples/standards Security & systemic reqts Implementation plans

Mobilisation Assessment Definition Options Evaluation

Refine requirements definitions & evalusate applications.Prepare options (implementation plan, budget, business case, benefits realisation)

Vision & objectives

Current state audience map, content assessment, ICT infrastructure assessment. Gap analysis.

End-state content matrix and content models, migration strategy, security and admin models, architecture.

Requirements specifictaion. Vendor shortlist. Implementation options (plan, budget, benefits realisation, risk register, SWOT analysis).

Align on objectives and approach.

Analyse current state - strategy, audiences, content, metadata, infrastructure, processes, culture.

Define key parameters for future state - content, metadata, system requirements, processes, security

Support

Final report and presentations. Business case options.

Support AI to finalise business case.

Plan & Present

Refine plans and business cases.Prepare final reports / presentations.Shortlisted vendor presentations.



How Much

• Business Case(s)• Costs• Benefits• SWOT• Change mgt• Benefits realisation

How / When / Where

• Architecture Models• Technical• Security• Admin• Skills

• Implementation options• Content migration• Vendor shortlist• Risk Register

Deliverables

Iterative approach, to ensure we’re aligned Enough detail to set up future elaboration

What

• Current state• Content• Process• Culture• ICT Infrastructure• Related projects

• Future state content• Content matrix & org• Metadata & taxonomy• Lifecycles• Skills

• Functional reqts• Non-functional reqts

Why

• ECM vision statement

Who

• Audience map



ContractingKey issue:

Internal clarity via JV

Roles and responsibilities Defined in Tender

Revenue split By company By milestone How to handle changes Flows from project plan

Dispute resolution If one has a problem, we all do Mutual agreement Agreed mediator with shared costs

Dec 2004:Contract




Internal clarity via JV

Intellectual Property If you create it, you own it

Professional Indemnity

Termination

Administration What expenses can we bill Who handles invoices, & when

Dec 2004:Contract




Client clarity

Joint and several liability

Amnesty’s contract

Simpler than the JV agreement

Tender doc as a schedule

Dec 2004:Contract



DeliveringKey issue:

Communication

No central server

Shared “virtual control centre” via spreadsheet Within team With client

Email IT support for offsite work?

Conference call Service Skype

Jan 2005:Deliver



# # # # # ## ## 24-Jan 25-Jan 26-Jan 27-Jan 28-Jan ## ## 31-Jan 01-Feb 02-Feb 03-Feb 04-Feb ## ## 07-Feb 08-Feb 09-Feb 10-Feb 11-FebPhase

Objectives

Deliverables

Activities

Graham Prep deliverables

14.00: Chris Checkpoint

14.45: Merlin

16.00: Donnacha

Kate

Meet with ECM steering/core team to• Understand overall programme objectives• Develop stakeholder map for the programme• Agree objectives for this engagement• Present the ECM assessment framework. Agree customisations specific to AI• Identify key AI documentation for our initial analysis• Identify key personnel we should be talking to in order to understand AI’s ECM requirements and current state• Identify key risks to this engagement• Agree communication plan and protocols for this engagement• Agree logistics (e.g. access to AI premises, desks and networks)• Review and refine plans for the first 3-4 weeks of this engagement

Prepare interview protocols, based on ECM assessment framework.

Document review and interviews to define• Audience map. (Who are the end users, content contributors and system support staff? What are their objectives? How important are these to AI? What are their characteristics and access patterns? What are their perceived pain points?)• Current state content assessment. (What assets are managed, through all relevant channels (e.g. AIDOCS, websites, etc)? How are they classified? How are they managed, e.g. roles and workflows?)• Current state technology assessment. (What systems, standards and processes are in place to support current content management processes? What future state principles or standards have been agreed? Will cover issues such as data models, security, technical infrastructure, development methods and tools, operational processes, skills.)• Refined objectives and requirements for ECM. (Capture points that become evident during interviews and document review, e.g. of ISP/ISOP.)• Relationships to any linked initiatives.• Current content and project governance models. (Roles and responsibilities, decision making processes, policies and standards, etc.)

Analysis of interview and document findings to identify gaps, overlaps, opportunities for improvement, etc.

Mobilisation Assessment

Align Objectives & Approach

Vision & Objectives

Analyse current state (strategy, audiences, content, metadata, infrastructure, processes, culture)

Audience map, content assessment, ICT infrastructure assessment, gap analysis.



#### #### #### #### 28-Jan # #### #### #### #### 11-Feb # #### #### #### #### 25-Feb

frame draftreviewrefine deliver frame draftreviewrefine deliver frame draft deliverAgreed vision and objectives (programme). A simple statementsummarising the key objectives, as currently understood, of the ECMprogramme, and the value that achieving these objectives will deliver to Amnesty International. GrahamAgreed objectives for this stage. A simple statement summarisingthe key objectives for this stage of the programme and the contributionthey will make to the overall objectives. GrahamAgreed ways of working together. List of ground rules for workingtogether, e.g. identifying protocols for running meetings, managingemails and other communication, etc. Agreed schedule of regularmeetings, conference calls or checkpoints, with standing agendaswhere relevant. Agreed escalation processes. GrahamRefined assessment framework. An agreed version of the ECMassessment framework, including any customisations specific to AI’srequirements. GrahamAgreed schedule for next 2-4 weeks. Detailed plan of meetings,workshops, interviews, etc for the Assessment (and, where possible,Definition) phase of this engagement. GrahamRefined deliverable schedule. Refined definition of the balance ofthis deliverable schedule. Agreed format for each deliverable. GrahamList of documents to review. List of existing AI documents (e.g.International Strategic Plan, IS operational Plans) for the consultingteam to review during the Assessment and Definition phases. GrahamPreliminary risk & issues log. A preliminary version of the risk and Audience map. This profiles the three audiences (content readers,contributors and system support staff) for the ECM solution. It identifiestheir key attributes (e.g. skills, culture) and objectives, theirinterrelationships, and the types of information they need. It alsocaptures their current issues in managing and accessing content. It willbe presented in a form appropriate to our findings – perhaps as a matrix of audience segments and their attributes plus diagrams illustratingtheir relationships. KateAs-is content assessment. An assessment of the content currentlymanaged by AI, for both internal and external audiences (e.g. intranets,web sites, file stores). This will identify the content types and formatsmanaged, metadata and taxonomies associated with this content,intended audiences for the content, volumetrics and usage statisticswhere available, security classifications, etc. It will probably bepresented as a “bubble diagram” (visual representation of repositoriesand content types) and corresponding outline “content matrix”(spreadsheet describing all key content types and their owners,approvers, contributors, end users, formats, volumes, etc). Kate

Deliverable Owner

Mobilisation Assessment Definition



Class Effe

ct

Imm

edia

te

Cau

se

Inte

rmed

iate

ca

use

Root CauseLikeli-hood Impact

Sever-ity Trigger Mitigation

Cannot assess current state in time

Too much documentation to read 2 3 6 See pile at mobilisationSpread load & summarise for each other. Prioritise with AI staff.

Cannot schedule interviews

People not available 3 3 9See schedule at mobilistaion

Identify alternatives. Be flexible: allow some creep into options evaluation, but with offsetting time allowances. Escalate if necessary.

Cannot co-ordinate calendars 2 3 6See schedule at mobilistaion

Work with Annie. Be flexible: allow some creep into options evaluation, with offsetting time allowances.

More interviews than anticipated 4 2 8

See schedule at mobilisation; monitor interviews added over time

Use mini workshops; Spread interview load; Be clear about when interviewing for buy-in versus for information & escalate if necessary.

Cannot schedule workshop 3 5 15See schedule at mobilisation.

Can be some flexibility about timing. Break into 2 smaller workshops??? (may be hard to schedule)

Cannot define end state in time 0Unclear ECM vision causes delays 3 5 15 See below

Cannot schedule interviews As above

More interviews than anticipated As above

Cannot schedule workshop As above

Cannot define adequate shortlist of vendorsDelay setting up RFI 2 4 8Need to cover more vendors than anticipated

Need a larger longlist 1 4 4Difficulty converging on final shortlist 3 4 12

Slow responses to RFI 3 2 6Use provisional figures for budgeting and complete RFI after budget options are prepared

Timescales



Support

April 2005:Support

Renegotiate roles & revenue Match skills to changed client

needs Bring in new skills

Team celebrations

Improve the communications infrastructure Blackberry Document sharing & versioning

(Groove? Shared service?)



Summary

Needed to be clear about how we’d work together So we could plan our activities, and allocate revenue So we could reassure the client

Clarity required effort, but made us more competitive Little beyond “good project management” but we had to

demonstrate it from the outset

We delivered Skills and political savvy meant AI did something they couldn’t have

done with a more junior team from a larger consultancy

Can’t have too much support for communications



Questions?



Graham Oakes Ltd

Making sense of technology We help people work out how to use technology to achieve business goals. We deploy highly experienced consultants with a diverse set of technical,

management and people-centred skills. Our principal, Dr Graham Oakes, is a highly skilled systems engineer with over 20 years’ experience in the industry and a track record of delivering highly innovative solutions.

Clients Amnesty International – Defined enterprise content management strategy to support information sharing

between researchers, activists and external partners (e.g. journalists, other NGOs). Cisco Worldwide Education – Defined financial models, competitive marketplace and potential infrastructure

partners to commercialise Cisco’s e-learning assets in Europe. The Open University – Defined enterprise architecture, customer relationship management strategy, and

business case for renewing course production systems. Oxfam – Defined strategy and business case for content management and customer relationship

management systems. Intermediate Technology Development Group – Defined enterprise architecture for knowledge sharing

amongst communities of researchers and project teams in first and third world. MessageLabs – Helped define & implement technology strategy for customer and partner self-service portal. Sapient Ltd – Helped define & implement risk management strategy for customer billing solution.

Services Business and technology alignment Integrated business, technical and human architecture Technology innovation Project execution and review

Date post:	08-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dusty
View:	30 times
Download:	3 times

Amnesty International case study

Documents