Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Learning Management System Recommendations

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Learning Management System Recommendations"— Presentation transcript:

1 Learning Management System Recommendations
CIO- David Watson CFO- Ryan Kreinbring CNO- Susan Besheer DON- Elizabeth Acord HR Director- Connie Egerer Director of Compliance- Connie Egerer Good evening everyone, thank you so much for joining us this evening for our presentation of our LMS vendor selection process. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce our team members and also the roles that they played in our discussions and decision-making process. David Watson will be playing the role of our CIO, Ryan Kreinbring will be playing the role of our CFO, Susan Besheer will be playing the role of our CNO, I played the role of DON, and Connie Egerer played the role of both HR Director and Director of Compliance for the purposes of this discussion.

2 Decision-Making Process
RFP Sent Out 5 responses received Subjective analytical tool utilized for individual rankings Group brought together to discuss top two vendors based on rankings Individual Rankings compiled Delphi method used to reach consensus To begin, I would like to conduct a high-level overview of the process we followed in order to select the vendor who would be the best fit for our discussion. Our first step was to send out the RFP. Of the vendors to whom we sent the RFP we had 5 vendor responses. Once those responses were received, we used a ranking tool that each person could take away and complete individually while they review the RFPs. The rankings were based on previous discussion surrounding the needs of the organization and the importance of each factor. Clearly, functionality was of the most importance to us with price coming in second. Final Vendor Selected

3 CIO Ranking The Rankings on this page reflect my opinions of both the RFP responses as well as the functionality shown in the spreadsheet. Due to my past experience, I leaned more towards the written responses than the excel spreadsheet because most vendors will claim to be able to do most things.

4 CIO Key Points Certpoint Healthstream Oracle eLeap Solo Learning
Vendor is relatively unknown Healthstream SaaS highly desirable Oracle Cost prohibitive eLeap Unclear integration capabilities and content Solo Learning First choice Certpoint came into the picture late in the game. This RFP was originally sent to Cengage which was unable to respond at this time due to internal issues and they referred the team to Certpoint. The pricing appeared reasonable based upon requirements and the architecture is acceptable and integration points defined. The project team was defined, but I was really hoping for more details on the actual people with whom we would be working and their specific skills and experience. We all know that the team can make or break an implementation. In addition, I felt that they did not provide enough specifics surrounding training. Currently, my team does not have the bandwidth to support significant training so it would be ideal for us if the vendor could provide significant support in that area. HealthStream is certainly one of my first choices. The clearly stated outcomes, simple pricing structure and SaaS all made HealthStream a clear choice for me and my team. The architecture is also acceptable, though I was left unclear regarding the integration capabilities as well as the project team. Oracle’s option is extremely expensive, which was anticipated coming from this vendor. The only benefit to a system like Oracle is the brand/name recognition and security of a large, established vendor, but I did not feel that was enough to sway my rankings of the responses. eLeap was unclear regarding an SaaS option which was disappointing to me. I did feel that due to the technology being web-hosted and having a strong architecture, it could be a great option if it were hosted remotely. The support and warranty were the strongest piece of this RFP but were not enough to push me in this direction, especially without a clear SaaS option. Solo Learning was the first place vendor for me from an IT perspective. They had architecture that was solid and scalable and phenomenal functionality. In addition, they had excellent references and the most competitive pricing. The decision seems clear to me. 4

5 User Acceptance Testing
Vendor's obligation to correct any defects discovered during testing Acceptance criteria generally includes: System functional capabilities Interfaces work properly System complies with scalability and performance requirements In reviewing the responses, I believe a key point was missed by the vendors…that was user acceptance testing and the obligation of vendors to correct any issues/errors/defects discovered during this process. There was relatively little to no language in the responses about this key point and will be included in contract negotiations with our selected vendor. 5

6 CFO Ranking Thanks Bryan, as you can see from the table my scoring was fairly close across the board. I did not see a major outlier across the Vendor’s and they were all in line with the industry. My primary concern with the selection was price. Since the Joint Commission visit was unannounced NCH did NOT have funds budgeted for this system. We were caught off guard by this capital expense and thus price weighed heavily. NCH does keep a fund with a fixed amount budgeted for “emergency” Joint Commission unsatisfactory marks. With that said, the board approved a withdrawal of those funds for this system. We have secured $80,000 for fiscal year 2010 and will begin budgetary process for 2011 funds (ongoing maintenance etc…) out of the normal operating budget. It’s very important that we be cognizant of the $80,000 as it will not be good to go back to the board and ask for more money out of the emergency fund. Also with the $80,000 withdrawal the board has tagged this fund as critically low and it will be very difficult to get more out of it when their concern is replenishing the funds (not taking more out). As you can see from the table my #1 was Solo Learning and eLeap was a close second. In the next 2 slides I hope to illustrate a little more on how I came to these scores again with the major emphasis on price.

7 CFO Pricing Analysis The following illustrates my team’s breakdown of costs by the various RFP’s. While there was not a large overall vendor deviation there was a fair amount of deviation on price from the most expensive (1 year) of $232,000 to the cheapest of $35,000. As I stated above the price alone almost finalized the removal of CertPoint and HealthStream as NCH simply doesn’t have the funds for these Vendor’s. If we wanted to select one of these vendors we would have to hold off any work until 2011 (at least) and CEO wants to start on this ASAP. While the price does seem to indicate a very high level of quality from these vendors I do not see a reason the cheaper vendor’s cannot get the job done well. Also eLeap and Solo Learning have reduced costs over the initial purchase year. These figures should fit into the NCH 2011 budget. Also NCH was pleased to see Solo Learning’s offer of a perpetual license. This will allow substantial savings over years 2-5 for NCH. It should be noted that these figures will need to be confirmed by the Vendor before final selection as some data extrapolation was done and we want to ensure it’s still accurate.

8 CFO Pricing Analysis The following graph also illustrates the vendors costs over the 1, 3, and 5 year terms for NCH. It clearly shows the expensive Vendor’s (CertPoint and HealthStream) total cost of ownership continues to climb. eLeap and Solo learning however offer much smaller incremental yearly costs over initial investments. The following slides clearly demonstrate my preference for Solo Learning. Solo Learning has a very impressive list of reference clients and I feel the cost is a value to NCH. After talking to the rest of the team the price fits into NCH’s budget and Solo seems to be the best value per dollar.

9 CNO and DON Ranking As the DON for Northwestern Community Hospital I feel we must obtain the best LMS system that is financially feasible while at the same time satisfy’s all our necessary requirements now and into the future for staff and management. What I am looking for in the LMS are certain tools in order for our staff to utilized the system with: least amount of effort ease of use efficient with their time compilation of necessary required documents quickly and efficently thereby saving the organization dollars and FTE’s. The LMS chosen must provide a platform for the organizations online learning environment by enabling the management, delivery, and tracking of online with blended learning. I am looking at a system for the entire life of course materials from initial design to development, teaching, technical support and through long-term archival of course content. Which also has “Significant Use” which is defined as use for meaningful instructional activity and not just for management purpose. The LMS must be centralized with available features for future implementation that will match a pattern of growth in our organization in the system usage. We must be able to use mobile devices (cell phones), involve collaboration with other systems and across organizational units, and be able to integrate as needed with any future resources. One negative I will have stayed away from is any 3rd party use if necessary due to the associated increase costs. Cost elements include license, vendor relationship, customization, usability, accessibility, updates, upgrades, end-user support, development and vendor risk management (vendor bankruptcy, merger). As you can see, my rankings are on this slide

10 CNO Analysis Created a Survey for clinical end-users focusing on the following: Tool Set/Features Ease of Use Technological issues related to learning Log-in Intuitiveness Cross-platform Content Accessibility Robustness Communication Interface Consistency Plug-ins browser support Gradebook Number of Clicks Assessment Searching In order to ensure we selected a system with which the end-users were comfortable, in partnership with my DON, we created a survey and surveyed staff members who would be effected by this implementation. This survey focused on Tool Set/Features, Ease of Use and Technological issues related to learning.

11 Survey Results Solo Learning Oracle Certpoint Healthstream
These are the images of the charts we developed based on the survey feedback. This survey was also used as a tool to gain buy-in for a number of clinicians who were not supportive of this initiative. Through this survey and an opportunity to demo the system, however begrudgingly, they realized that this system would make their lives easier by tracking all of the trainings they currently have to fill out paperwork and submit to HR in order to keep their records up to date. A new system, will actually increase efficiency for them and they won’t have to waste time anymore filling out forms!

12 Survey Results eLeap As you can see by the chart, this survey has led me to feel that eLeap would be the best fit, followed closely by Solo Learning.

13 HR Director and Compliance Officer Rankings
Both found the eLeap pricing structure and proposal to be confusing. The software was not clearly SaaS, which they thought would be better to meet the CIO’s preferences. Therefore, eLeap was graded lower. Oracle failed to provide references and their pricing was high. However, company reputation and ability to fulfill needs helped them out. A negative for healthstream was their inability to allow ad hoc reporting out of the box, requiring 3rd party involvement. However, they wrote a good proposal. Solo’s pricing was good but functionality lacking.

14 Political Environment
HR Director and Compliance Officer aligned strategically Chosen vendor was not initially preferred vendor for HR, Compliance, DON, or CNO Buy-in from the clinicians was gained through the survey process The Delphi approach was used for the vendor selection process as well as our original Scope of Work development. As you have seen, each of the team players was given a score sheet to evaluate the responses to the Requests for Proposal. The plan had been to have each fill out their own score sheets and turn them in for review by the team. As you have seen, the HR Director and Compliance Officer chose to collaborate on this effort, as did the CNO and DON. The compliance officer anticipated trouble ahead with the HR Director due to her residual resistance to an LMS and decided that since they had a very good relationship, he would invite the HR Director to work with him on the ratings of the requests for proposal. This gave the compliance officer not only an opportunity to advise the HR Director in setting ratings, but also an opportunity to make her feel better about the LMS implementation in general. Walking through each of the proposals and all of the specific items which each vendor could accomplish allowed an opportunity to highlight how these things could benefit HR. As they moved toward completion of the task, the Compliance officer heard out the HR director’s concerns and was able to show her that the LMS was actually a good solution for the HR department as well as the hospital as a whole. In addition to education as a means for the Compliance Officer to win over the HR director to becoming supportive of the LMS implementation, he was able to listen to her concerns and agree to support the HR director in increasing staffing for other compliance-related issues which needed support. These were areas much better addressed with increased headcount than with a technology solution. Both the CNO and the DON initially thought the whole thing was a huge hassle because the staff are in the middle of a long implementation of an enterprise EMR. They are swamped and were reluctant to participate on the selection committee. However including them in the process turned out to be a terrific way to get their buy-in. As you have seen, they ended up developing a survey together which in turn brought the entire nursing staff into the process. They gave valuable input which helped to affirm the vendor selection. The CFO had initially been concerned about a LMS not being included in the budget and how it will be financed. However, he knew that reserve funds were available for Joint Commission issues and he supported the CEO who has a quality initiative on his strategic plan just approved by the board. The CEO hates any JCAHO black marks and was driving a solution from the top down. So, the CFO’s focus had been on making sure that the job was done at the most reasonable cost. The CIO was most concerned with making sure that the LMS did not add to the current overload on his resources due to an EMR implementation and had pushed for an SaaS model for this particular system. The HR Director and Compliance officer were strongly focused on the features offered in the LMS, and when the first round of the Delphi process was completed, they had selected Oracle, while the CNO and DON had chosen eLeap, followed very closely by Solo Learning. The CFO and CIO working separately had each selected Solo Learning. The results were gathered together and there was a discussion held as to the benefits and weaknesses of each system. The CNO and DON were easily persuaded to select Solo Learning, as they saw very little difference between them. The HR Director continued to express concerns that a functionally less than optimum system could still end up being a drag on HR resources and was resistant to going to Solo Learning. However, with the support of the Compliance officer, they were able to obtain support from the CFO for another HR position in the next fiscal year to support other project needs. This satisfied the HR Director and on the last round of voting, everyone selected Solo Learning as their vendor of choice.

15 Change Management Decision Authority User Acceptance Testing
Training-- Superusers Communication Plans ITIL : The goal of the Change Management process is to ensure that standardized methods and procedures are used for efficient and prompt handling of all changes, in order to minimize the impact of change-related incidents upon service quality, and consequently improve the day-to-day operations of the organization. ISO_20000 defines the objective of Change management (part 1, 9.2) as: To ensure all changes are assessed, approved, implemented and reviewed in a controlled manner. In order to realize a successful implementation and continue to keep the momentum going on this project, it is important to have the appropriate change management processes in place. There must be a process in place for the actual technological aspects of this implementation and it will be important for us to work with our final vendor to establish an appropriate change management process where both their changes as well as our requested changes are approved at a senior level. The decision authority for this type of change management will rest with an established team comprised of the HR Director, the Compliance Officer, the CFO, the CIO and the CNO. In addition, the importance of organizational change management should not be over-looked. It is crucial in this environment for these changes to be successful and order for them to be successful, support must be built for the change and the lines of communication must be kept open to all stakeholders involved in the project. Information regarding this implementation should be shared immediately. In order to gain buy-in it can be shared immediately that one of the top two vendors from the clinical stakeholder survey was selected. This will allow the team to see that their voices have been heard. Front-line supervisory staff should be asked to select superusers and there should be rewards and incentives in place for participation. A united front must be presented by the senior team in order for the entire hospital to buy in.

16 Cumulative Rankings As you can see above our top two vendors that we utilized for our final discussion session were HealthStream and Solo Learning. Due to a situation fraught with political tension, it was important for us to utilize a tool to narrow down our options objectively in such a subjective environment while still giving all team members the opportunity to weigh in. As you can see, we did choose what ended up to be our top-ranked vendor, which was lucky for us. Do keep in mind that following this process, that may not always be the case.

17 THANK YOU!


Download ppt "Learning Management System Recommendations"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google