Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Client-Centered Approach to Prioritizing and Managing Development Projects
February 15, 2012, 1:15 pm
Garry Sagert
Presentation Purpose
• To provide a high-level overview of the University of Victoria’s client-centred approach to prioritizing and managing information systems projects
Presenter Background
• $21M project upgrade to admin systems• Institutional Portal• Banner Finance, HR/Payroll, Student
Records, Fundraising, Workflow, Imaging• FAMIS Facilities Management• Sun Identity Manager• SAS Business Intelligence
University of Victoria
• Comprehensive Research University• Primary campus in Gordon Head• 20,000 students• 4,700 employees• $300M annual budget• $100M in research funding
University Systems
• Provides comprehensive information services in support of research, teaching and administration
• 175 employees• $15M annual budget
Information Systems Activities
• Research– WestGrid, Neptune, Venus, Climate Modelling
• Teaching– Labs, Learning Systems, Multimedia,
Plagiarism Detection• Administration
– Student Records, Payroll, Finance, Facilities Management, Fundraising, Procurement, Research Admin, Business Intelligence
University Systems
• Chief Information Officer• Three Directors:
– Infrastructure• Data Centres, Servers, Network, Telephone,
Information Security Team
– Academic and Admin Services• Help Desk, Labs, Learning Systems, Multimedia
– UVic Online• Online Presence, Administrative Software, Project
Management Office, Identity Management
Challenges
• Clients like to call developers directly• Ensuring appropriate project prioritization• Fair and transparent resource allocation• Scaling the model to deal with big projects• Being competitive with external providers• Managing projects that don’t fit the model• Scope creep
Solution Overview
• Functionally-oriented governance structures guide prioritization
• Notional allocation of developers to functional areas sets expectations
• Comprehensive project management framework manages scope and resources
WHO WHATWHERE
Information Systems Governance Workflow
• Strategy• Governance• Enterprise portfolio• Policy
VPs, AVPs, Deans,Executive Directors
• Data centres• Capability & capacity• Storage• Proposals
Researchers, Faculty, AVP-R, & Research Office
• Student labs• Learning
management• Audio Visual• Classroom
technology
Deans, Faculty, AVPs, LTC
oupsWorking Groups
Priorities
Objectives
Student, Finance, HR, Advancement, Facilities, Research Admin, & Systems
• Scheduling• Resource
allocation• Project oversight• Prioritization
Information Systems Steering Committee
Educational Technology Advisory
Committee
Research ComputingSteering Committee
Administrative Systems Operating
Committee
Project Review Committee
Inform
New Projects Monitor
Information Systems Steering Committee
• Meets monthly• Assess degree of fit within strategic plan• Campus-wide I.S. policies and standards • Link to other senior level committees• Provide guidance to strategic planning
Information Systems Steering Committee
Purpose
The ISSC is designed to manage the portfolio of information systems investments. This council is central to the successful functioning of the governance process. It will ensure the I.S. decisions have strategic fit, functional utility, and balanced investment across the institution. Setting objectives and establishing institutional criteria for prioritizing I.S. initiatives will be done by this committee. The ISSC will oversee Information systems policies, strategic plans, and organization.
Objectives
• Administer the I.S. governance process• Represent all I.S. stakeholders across campus• Recommend priorities for I.S. initiatives• Assess degree of fit for I.S. initiatives within the Vision for the Future• Provide advice for allocating resources and funding for I.S. initiatives• Monitor progress of I.S. initiatives• Assess benefits realization of I.S. initiatives• Recommend campus-wide I.S. policies and standards • Link to other senior level university committees• Provide guidance to the development of I.S. strategic planning
Logistics
The Information Systems Steering Committee will meet monthly. Committee members cannot delegate their role to a subordinate. Agenda will be prepared by the CIO.
Name Title Role
VP Finance & Operations Voting Chair
VP Academic & Provost Voting
VP Research Voting
AVP Student Voting
AVP HR Voting
Executive Director Finance
Voting
University Librarian Voting
AVP Research Voting
AVP Academic Planning Voting
AVP Financial Planning & Ops
Voting
Dean of Engineering Voting
Dean of Business Voting
Dean of HSD Voting
Dean of Continuing Studies
Voting
Dean of Social Science Voting
Director, Finance & Ops ER
Voting
Director Learning & Teaching
Voting
Director Inst.Plan. & Analysis
Voting
University Secretary Voting
Registrar Voting
Manager, Proj. Mgmt. Office
Non-voting
Chief Information Officer Voting
Members
Administrative Systems Operating Committee
• Meets quarterly• Focuses on new projects, enhancements,
and operational issues• Governed systems include all Student,
Finance, Human Resources, Facilities, Advancement, and Research Administration systems, not just Banner
• Mandate includes plans, projects, priorities
Administrative Systems Operating Committee
Purpose
The purpose of the Administrative Systems Operations Committee (ASOC) is to focus on new projects, enhancements, and operational issues for administrative systems. The systems governed by this committee include all Student, Finance, Human Resources, Facilities, Advancement, and Research Administration applications. All plans, projects, and priorities applicable to administrative information systems is within the mandate of ASOC.
Objectives
• Provide input and guidance to ongoing administrative systems operations, support efforts, and enhancements
• Approve priorities for administrative systems work• Recommend resource allocation and funding for administrative systems work
within University Systems• Assess degree of fit for new administrative systems projects within the Vision
for the Future• Monitor progress of administrative systems enhancements and projects• Assess benefits realization of new administrative systems projects • Discuss impacts of administrative systems changes to campus processes,
policies, and standards• Monitor staff implications of information system socialization (change
management, training, and union issues)• Resolve escalation of issues across departmental and unit boundaries• Facilitate integration of information systems and data across functional
boundaries• Approve terms of reference for functional working groups
Logistics
The Administrative Systems Operations Committee will meet quarterly. Prior to significant go-lives, such as a new Banner upgrade, the committee may meet more often. Committee members cannot delegate their role to a subordinate. Agenda will be prepared by the CIO. A comprehensive review of priorities will happen at least annually in June to help prepare for service plans. University Systems will hold a dual role on this committee. They are a service provider to the process and they are also a functional group with a request list.
Name Title Role
VP Academic & Provost Voting co-chair
VP Finance & Operations Voting co-chair
AVP Student Affairs Voting
AVP Human Resources Voting
Executive Director Finance
Voting
Executive Director Facilities
Voting
Director Research Services
Voting
Director Advancement Voting
AVP Budgets and Capital Planning
Voting
Registrar Voting
AVP Academic Planning Voting
Director Institutional Planning and Analysis
Voting
Manager, Project Management Office
Non-voting
Director UVic Online Non-voting
Chief Information Officer Voting + agenda
Members
Functional Working Groups
• Exist for each functional area, including Student, Finance, Human Resources, Facilities, Advancement, and Research Administration
• Meet monthly• Prioritize initiatives within respective areas
Student Systems Working GroupTerms of Reference
Purpose The purpose of the Student Systems Working Group is to focus on decisions related to processes and projects needed to support student information systems. The systems governed by this committee include support for Student Affairs, faculty administration, University Secretary, Student Accounts Receivable, and Institutional Analysis and are referenced as ‘Student Systems’ in the objectives below.
Objectives
• Recommend approval of project charters and project plans to the Administrative Systems Operating Committee (ASOC)
• Assess prioritization of student system project initiatives based on functional demands and resource availability
• Provide list of planned projects to ASOC with recommended prioritization and ranking of these projects
• Review the student systems Project Lite list (projects under 20 person-days) and determine if prioritization and resource allocation meets the needs of the University
• Provide guidance to ongoing student systems initiatives • Ensure the production student systems are meeting their objectives, (such as
timeliness of reporting, or capacity to handle registration volumes)• Resolve issues that student systems project teams cannot • Review student systems risks • Recommend approval of student systems projects scope, schedule, and
budget changes to ASOC• Monitor progress according to plans for student systems projects• Develop policies, procedures, and standards for the use of student systems
on campus• Monitor socialization (change management) of student system
implementations• Provide advice for allocating University Systems resources to student systems• Review critical incidents with student systems to improve quality of service• Provide point of contact for bringing forward all new student initiatives
Logistics
The Student Systems Working Group will meet monthly. Members cannot delegate their role to a subordinate.
Name Title Role
AVP Student Voting chair
AVP Academic Planning Voting member
Director, Student Systems Voting member
Director, Student Services Voting member
Director, Bookstore Voting member
Registrar Voting member
Director Enrolment Services
Voting member
Executive Director Finance
Voting member
Assist. University Secretary
Voting member
Director Institutional Planning & Analysis
Voting member
Director Athletics & Recreational Services
Voting member
Client Account ManagerNon-voting member
Client Account ManagerNon-voting member
Director UVic OnlineNon-voting member
Chief Information OfficerNon-voting vice chair
Members
Metric Description Value Score
Compliance
Legislative or legal demand imposed by a government authority
This value is based on whether the project charter references a legislative or legal demand as a purpose for doing the project, indicates compliance with a legislative or legal demand is a benefit, or states that not doing the project will put us at risk of non-compliance with a legislative or legal demand.
YesNo
500
Fit
Strategic fit with the goals and objectives of the University
This value is based on whether the project charter has demonstrated a valid linkage to the University’s Strategic Plan and University Systems’ strategic plan.
YesNo
100
Utility
The degree to which the qualitative and quantitative benefits outweigh costs and risks
This value depends on a clear definition of the qualitative and quantitative benefits in the benefits section of the project charter, the completion of the costs and risks sections, and the ability for the sponsor to clearly justify how the former outweigh the latter. The magnitude of difference will determine the value of this score.
HighMedium
Low
1030
Impact on Teaching and Learning A core impact score means the project’s purpose is aimed at Teaching Learning and it affects greater than 50% of teachers (Faculty and instructors) or learners (students) at the University. An incidental impact score means the project’s benefits are aimed at Teaching Learning and/or it affects up to 50% of teachers or learners (students) at the University. No impact score means the project has no benefits for Teaching Learning and it doesn’t affect any teachers or learners (students) at the University.
Core Incidental
None
1030
Impact on Research A core impact score means the project’s purpose is aimed at Research and it affects greater than 50% of researchers at the University. An incidental impact score means the project’s benefits are aimed at Research and/or it affects up to 50% of researchers at the University. No impact score means the project has no benefits for Research and it doesn’t affect any researchers at the University.
Core Incidental
None
1030
Impact on Administration A core impact score means the project’s purpose is aimed at Administration and it affects greater than 50% of administrative staff at the University. An incidental impact score means the project’s benefits are aimed at Administration and/or it affects up to 50% of administrative staff at the University. No impact score means the project has no benefits for Administration and it doesn’t affect any administrative staff at the University.
Core Incidental
None
1030
Prioritization Criteria
Notional Resource Allocation
• Each functional area is granted a notional allocation of base-funded resources
• Notional allocations approved by ASOC• If notional allocation is sufficient to achieve
objectives of functional working group, further intervention by ASOC is not required
Notional Resource AllocationProject Size Days
Small 0-10
Medium 10-40
Large > 40
Functional Project Allocation Ratio
Area Small Medium Large Percent
Student 12 6 3 41%
Finance 4 2 1 14%
HRIS 4 2 1 14%
Research 4 2 1 14%
Facilities 2 1 0.5 7%
Development 2 1 0.5 7%
Systems 1 0.5 0.5 3%
Resulting Developer FTE Allocation Ratio
Area Days Small Medium Large
Student 562.7 56.3 18.8 9.4
Finance 187.6 18.8 6.3 3.1
HRIS 187.6 18.8 6.3 3.1
Research 187.6 18.8 6.3 3.1
Facilities 93.8 9.4 3.1 1.6
Development 93.8 9.4 3.1 1.6
Systems 46.9 4.7 1.6 0.8
Resulting Project Allocation
Area Small Medium Large
Student 56.3 18.8 9.4
Finance 18.8 6.3 3.1
HRIS 18.8 6.3 3.1
Research 18.8 6.3 3.1
Facilities 9.4 3.1 1.6
Development 9.4 3.1 1.6
Systems 4.7 1.6 0.8
Project Management Process
• Project Review Committee (PRC)• Charter project• Plan project• Provide weekly status updates• Project closeout report
Initial Idea Steering Committee
Priority List Project Charter
Sufficient ResourcesAt Hand?
No
Funding Request
Yes
Planning Executing Closing
FunctionalArea
# Project Name
1 Project A
2 Project B
3 Project C
4 Project D
5 Project E
6 Project F
7 Project G
8 Project H
9 Project I
10 Project J
11 Project K
12 Project L
13 Project M
14 Project N
15 Project O
Base funded
Functional project list
Approved by ASOC
• University Systems base funding of notional allocation
• Recommended to ASOC by Admin Working Groups
ASOC Funding Model
Project funded• One-time project funds• Example: Research Administration Info System
fund
Fee for service • Client sponsored and funded
Ancillary funded
• Ancillary department funded• Example: Housing System
Waitlist• Beyond capacity of functional units and University
Systems at this point in time
Brining it all Together
• Full project list and status reviewed at ISSC for fit with strategic plan
• Challenged projects reviewed at ASOC for possible project funding or potential changes to notional resource allocation
• Project priorities within each functional area set by working group
• Project expertise provided by PRC
