Upload
thomas-danford
View
488
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Tennessee Board of Regents "Open" Business Intelligence Initiative (BI) presentation given at EDUCAUSE 2011.
Citation preview
An "Open" Business Intelligence Initiative
Dr. Dennis Gendron | Tennessee State University
Thomas Danford | Tennessee Board of Regents
October 19, 2011
#E11_SESS036
"Copyright Thomas Danford and Dennis Gendron 2011. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors."
ABOUT TENNESSEE STATEUNIVERSITY (TSU)
• Founded in 1912 in Nashville• Comprehensive, urban, coeducational land-grant
university in Nashville• 8 colleges/schools/institutes offering more than 45
bachelor’s degree programs, 24 master’s degree options, and seven doctoral areas
• Over 9,000 students from at least 42 states and 45 countries
2
A “PHASED” APPROACH
3
BusinessValue
Roadmap
BusinessRequirements
andStrategy
ImplementationRoadmap
Architecting & Implementation
Planning
Req
mts
Des
ign
Impl
emen
tatio
nPl
an
. . .
Impl
emen
tP
roje
ct #
1
Impl
emen
tP
roje
ct #
n
Data
Applications
Technology
Business/process
Legend
On-going Governance
InitiateProject
Impl
emen
tP
roje
ct #
2
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
3
PHASE #1 – PARTNERSHIP IN STRATEGIC PLANNING
4
BusinessValue
Roadmap
BusinessRequirements
andStrategy
InitiateProject
4
OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH – PHASE #1Objective: Enhance organizational operations and management reporting capability by
identifying executive and departmental key performance indicators (KPIs)
High Level As-Is Analysis To-Be Vision Gap Analysis & Roadmap
Activities Define key initiatives to achieve desired future state
capabilities
Finalize KPI and reporting priorities
Identify interdependencies and required implementation sequencing
Determine impact of future state KPI and reporting requirements and desired timing on current organization, processes, technology and data
Present consolidated roadmap, metrics design and related definitions to executive leadership
Deliverables Refined Future State KPIs with related definitions,
measures, ownership and data mappings
Executive dashboard design
Future State strategic roadmap containing:
– Implementation considerations and high level plan
– Critical reporting requirements definition
Activities Conduct Visioning Workshop with Executive
Leadership
Establish Executive Dashboard Vision and priorities
Develop initiative write-ups including:
– Key metric definition, calculation, and ownership
– Data dimensions and frequency
– Currently being used or future use metric
Document overall changes to process, technology and data
Finalize framework for prioritizing KPIs and related initiatives
Deliverables Future State Capability Vision
Future State KPIs with related definitions, measures, ownership and data mappings
Information and data assessment
Initial Reporting Requirements
Activities Refine data collection approach and schedule
interviews with Executive Leadership (pre-kickoff)
Submit data collection request (pre-kickoff)
Organize and kick-off project
Conduct key stakeholder alignment meeting
Meet with and interview President and Executive Leadership
Identify current KPIs by department/function
Establish current and desired requirements/priorities
Identify pain points and critical path
Review existing reports and documentation
Deliverables Current State assessment (KPIs , gap analysis and
process capability)
Interview key findings and observations
5
KPI REPOSITORY METHODOLOGY
Academic Master PlanStrategic Plan
Facilities Master PlanAcademic Integrity Committee Report
Departmental SLAsDiversity Plan
Low-Producing Programs StatusExternal Report Listing
Departmental Strategic PlansUniversity website
Other University DashboardsSACS – 2008 Principles of AccreditationNACUBO – Performance Measurement
ToolkitNCAA.com
US News & World ReportsIPEDS
Tennessee Higher Education – Profile and Trends
PresidentVice PresidentsAssociate VPs
Institutional Research
Key Performance Indicator Repository
DeansDepartment Chairs
Directors
Executive Leadership Interviews Organizational Documents/Plans Research
Through this process the key performance metrics were identified
6
KPI REPOSITORY
Source/KPI Document
Documents where the recommendation for the metric came from
Metric OwnerExplains who at TSU is responsible for hitting the metric's target
Department
States the department of the person at TSU who is responsible for hitting the metric's target
Dimensions
Explains all the categories in which the metric will be reported (e.g. total enrollment by race, gender, zip code - race, gender, zip code are the dimensions)
Frequency
States how often the metric should be reported (Most are reported by semester or annually)
Related Objective Maps the metric to a University metric
Metric Category
Type of metric (e.g. Admissions, Development)
Metric IDUnique identifier assigned to each metric
President’s Dashboard (Y/TBD/N)
Establishes whether the metric will or will not be on the President's executive dashboard
Metric Name Name given to the metric
Metric Description Detail on what the metric measures
Calculation Defines how to calculate the metricUnit of
MeasureExplains the form the metric will be in (e.g. $, %)
We defined over 400 key performance metrics using the following factors:
7
BI DASHBOARD IMPLEMENTATION WORK PLAN
Wave Phase Action Item
Wave 1 - Implementation
of top 25 KPIs
Phase 1 - KPI Prioritization
Select first 25 KPIsRecommend first 25 KPIs to the PresidentPresent first 25 KPIs to Cabinet and decide final list
Phase 2 - Planning Determine project lead, team, governance entitySCUP Proposal
Phase 3 - Design
Submit samples of dashboard designs to RehanObtain ARGOS Dashboard examplesDesign Brainstorming MeetingDesign Wave 1 Executive DashboardPresent to Executive Steering Committee
Phase 3.5 - ODS Training ODS (Tech, VC Overview, ST, FA, AD, FI, HR)
Phase 4 - Development
Develop data sources, data targets, and KPI reportDevelop detailed test planDevelop end-user training materialsDevelop communication planDeploy to QA
Phase 5 - Training & Testing
Test DashboardTrain end users
Phase 6 - Deployment Roll-out to Executive CommitteeDeploy to all end-users
8
ABOUT THE TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS (TBR)
• Public post-secondary education system established in 1972 by TCA Title 49 Chapter 8
• 6 universities, 13 community colleges and 27 technology centers with programs in 90 of Tennessee’s 95 counties
• 200K+ Students, 14K+ employees, and a budget in excess of $2.4B
• Comprehensive Banner® suite implementation (Student, Finance, HR/Payroll) across all colleges and universities
• Operational Data Store and Enterprise Data Warehouse (ODS/EDW) used at 17 of 19 colleges & universities
9
PHASE #2 – PARTNERSHIP IN ARCHITECTING
ImplementationRoadmap
Architecting & Implementation
Planning
Req
mts
Des
ign
Impl
emen
tatio
nPl
an
10
THE APPROACH
ODS
External Data
Sources
Bannerand/or
Departmental Reporting
KPIs
Alerts
ScorecardsDashboards
11
THE PROCESSIdentified Performance
MetricsKPI Modeling
ProjectScoping
Staff and Resource Identification
Project & Infrastructure Planning
DB ArchitectureData Mapping
ToolsArgos Reporting
Security Roles Requirement
Implementation & Testing
DB Design
Reporting & Analytics Design (KPIs, Dashboards,
Alerts, Etc.)
Implementation TestingDeployment &
Support
Reporting & Analytics
Architecture
Business Analysis
Data Structure
and Management
Reporting and Analytics
Development
Dat
a A
rchi
tect
Dat
a A
rchi
tect
and
Bus
ines
s &
Sys
tem
s A
naly
st(s
)
Dat
a A
rchi
tect
and
Bus
ines
s &
Sys
tem
s A
naly
st(s
)
12
Degree Productivity by Year with Drill-Down to College and Sub-Populations
THE RESULTS (AS OF 10/20/2011)
13
KPI Development
Completed; 37; 19%
In Testing; 27; 14%
Under Development; 66; 35%
Not Started; 61; 32%
THE ECONOMICS
• Value proposition• Phase #1 (Design): $200K• Phase #2 (Development): $500K – $950K• Phase #3 (Recurring): $50K – $95K• Total (5 year): $900K – $1.5M (per institution)
• Investment to participate: Build 5 or more KPIs• 175 – 325 person hours (≈ 5 – 9 weeks) (≈ $6K – $12K)• In 3 months (≈ 5 – 10 hrs/week)(negotiable)
14
PHASE #3 (AND CONTINUATION OF PHASE #2)
. . .
Impl
emen
tP
roje
ct #
1
Impl
emen
tP
roje
ct #
n
On-going Governance
Impl
emen
tP
roje
ct #
2
Executive and Subject Matter Expert Governance Committee2 Universities, 6 Community Colleges, System Office, and 1 Corporate
15
BENEFITS OF THIS COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
• Reducing costs and/or cost avoidance• Reduced time to delivery (working in parallel)• Source of stimulation and creativity (agility)• Higher quality (decisions, work product)• Enables/leverages specialization• Transfer of knowledge or skills (provides a
participant network)• Enhanced value and capabilities (takes advantage
of economies of scale)
16
CHALLENGES
• Dependence upon volunteers• Requires buy-in of technical and functional staff• Executive understanding of BI• Vendor misunderstanding
17
OTHER LESSONS LEARNED
• BI brings transparency that can lead to pushback• Strategic business initiative not an IT project• Projects are “important but not urgent”• Executive enthusiasm, support, and involvement• Project progress metrics/dashboards• BI projects are ongoing …
18
KPI Development
NEXT STEPS
• Consultancy support• Tutorial on the KPIs• Dashboards• Re-brand “BI” to?• Additional partners?
19