Intricate Lessons in Project Management

Marie Dockter

(Saint Louis University)

Ann Harbor & John Wasileski

(The University of Memphis)

Profiles

Profile & Cohort 1A GroupTennessee Higher

Education Commission

Tennessee Boardof Regents

University ofTennessee System

Universities (6)Community

Colleges (13)TechnologyCenters (26)

The University of Memphis

Middle TennesseeState University

Chattanooga State TCC

Columbia State CC

Volunteer State CC

Southwest TCC

The University of Memphis

More than 3,000 degrees awarded annually

Classified by Carnegie as “Community Engage”

• A comprehensive doctoral extensive university: – 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 RateBetween 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 enoughplanning

Misallignmentof expectations

Communicationproblems

Insufficient resources

Poor coordinationof materials/resources

Technicalproblems

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

• 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

Preparing for Implementation – cont’d

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 system-wide 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

– 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

You‘ve gotta be kidding!

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?

• 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?

Contemplations

• Questions?

• Suggestions?

• Experiences?