Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 The University of Massachusetts A Multi-campus ERP Implementation Case Study: What Worked and What didn't Robert Solis Director, Information Technology.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 The University of Massachusetts A Multi-campus ERP Implementation Case Study: What Worked and What didn't Robert Solis Director, Information Technology."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 The University of Massachusetts A Multi-campus ERP Implementation Case Study: What Worked and What didn't Robert Solis Director, Information Technology Services March 17 th, 2003 – 8 am, Meeting Room A NERCOMP 2003 Conference – Worcester, MA.

2 2 Copyright Copyright Robert Solis, 2003 – University of Massachusetts. 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 author.

3 3 Themes for the Day Chapter 1 - The BeginningChapter 1 - The Beginning Chapter 2 - Transition/CollaborationChapter 2 - Transition/Collaboration Chapter 3 - Staffing the ProjectChapter 3 - Staffing the Project Chapter 4 - Project Structure and GovernanceChapter 4 - Project Structure and Governance Chapter 5 - Project ExecutionChapter 5 - Project Execution Chapter 6 - Go Live and Preparing for OperationsChapter 6 - Go Live and Preparing for Operations

4 4 Chapter 1 – The Beginning

5 5 The Beginning Some quick facts about UMASS-Some quick facts about UMASS- –Established in 1863 in Amherst –More than 70,000 students enrolled in undergraduate, graduate and continuing studies programs –22,000 employees –Annual payroll of $806 million ($31 million/pay period) –FY ’03 operating budget of $1.3 billion 1863 – Amherst Agricultural College Established 1947 – Amherst Agricultural College becomes UMASS-Amherst 1952 – UMASS-Worcester Established 1954 – UMASS-Boston Established 1991 – UMASS-Dartmouth and UMASS-Lowell Established 2003 – 5 Campus System & the President’s Office

6 6 The Beginning UMASS Consists of 5 campuses (Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester) and the President’s OfficeUMASS Consists of 5 campuses (Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester) and the President’s Office Worcester Amherst President’s Office Lowell Dartmouth Boston

7 7 The Beginning –Each campus and the President’s Office had their own HRMS/Financials mainframe applications Worcester Amherst President’s Office Lowell Dartmouth Boston

8 8 The Beginning Because the 5 campus/President’s Office UMASS system was in it’s infancy in the 90’s, 3 autonomous PeopleSoft Projects had started (and stopped)…Because the 5 campus/President’s Office UMASS system was in it’s infancy in the 90’s, 3 autonomous PeopleSoft Projects had started (and stopped)… –Each had their own project team, governance model, database, requirements, modifications, consultants, budgets and timelines –However, each had to meet the same Board of Trustees requirements and interface with the President’s Office Amherst (Project Pioneer) Started in 1999 Boston and Lowell Started in 1999 Dartmouth, President’s Office, Worcester Started in 2000 Board of Trustees Requirements Interfaces Looks like silos to me (trying to accomplish the same thing)…

9 9 The Beginning Then someone had an idea in the new millennium… Why not consolidate projects?

10 10 Chapter 2 – Transition/Collaboration

11 11 Transition/Collaboration The Transition Phase (May 2000 – July 2000): “The Summer Summit” “The Summer Summit” –Campus/President’s Office subject matter experts convened to: 1.Agree on project logistics, staffing and governance 2.Develop consolidated implementation work plan 3.Identify and prioritize application modifications, interfaces and reports 4.Jointly design business processes

12 12 Transition/Collaboration A typical Transition Phase working session My campus can’t live without this report… Why do we always have to do what Amherst wants? Boston and Lowell have been talking and we’ve decided… This is ridiculous, I’m outta here! Better run that by the President’s Office… What you propose is in violation of Trustee policy…

13 13 Transition/Collaboration Drivers for Consolidation vs. SeparationDrivers for Consolidation vs. Separation –Standardization of university business processes –Increased coordination/communication between campuses/President’s Office Formal and informal knowledge transfer networksFormal and informal knowledge transfer networks –One university application –Resulting in: Shared implementation costsShared implementation costs Shared maintenance costsShared maintenance costs Shared technology infrastructureShared technology infrastructure

14 14 What worked… Creating an immediate inventory of consolidation ‘topics’ to be tackled Agreeing quickly on the ‘summit’ participants Making the commitment to focus on the transition phase Centralization of the project office; dedicated work space to accommodate each work group

15 15 What didn't… Deliberation on EVERY issue, not always tailored to the net impact of the issue Not nearly enough time developing the work plan / project framework for the upcoming project

16 16 Chapter 3 – Staffing the Project

17 17 Internal Staffing Defining roles –What role would the campus and IT play –Applications/module teams created –Team leads assigned Functional/Business resources –Filled by campus central admin staff (HR and Finance) Technology resources –Created a central IT organization to manage the project and assume operational responsibility at go-live

18 18 Consulting Staffing Selecting an implementation partner was a joint decision by the campus leadership Chose to ‘partner’ by segmenting the work 50/50 – UMass to Consulting Used management, applications and technical consulting in order to learn for future projects

19 19 What worked… Solid commitment for business knowledgeable project resources at each campus Each campus offered some level of ‘incentive’ for travel to the central project site Buy in from leadership and project team on: –Project location –Expected time commitment to the project –Who filled what role Good knowledge transfer from the consulting staff

20 20 What didn't… Project resources and the communication to leadership back at the campus ‘End users’ not involved at the right level Filled internal staff positions late in the process (hiring of PS expertise) Multiple consulting partners relationship was complex and ‘clumsy’ at times

21 21 Chapter 4 – Project Structure and Governance

22 22 Project Structure and Governance

23 23 Project Structure and Governance

24 24 Project Structure and Governance Enter the Governance Model… Characteristics of the Governance Model Designed for decisions to made at the appropriate project “level”Designed for decisions to made at the appropriate project “level” Issue resolution/escalation process prevents items from being “tabled”Issue resolution/escalation process prevents items from being “tabled” Equal representation at all levels for each campus/President’s OfficeEqual representation at all levels for each campus/President’s Office Clearly defined roles and responsibilitiesClearly defined roles and responsibilities

25 25 Project Structure and Governance Culture Changes As a Result of the Governance Model 1.The old attitude of “that is unacceptable with my campus” became “I’d like to run that by the module team and see what everyone thinks” 2.Application modifications were seriously questioned as to their necessity 3.System wide considerations were placed above campus considerations

26 26 Project Structure and Governance The Governance Model

27 27 Project Structure and Governance Issue Resolution/Escalation Process Issue/Decision Work to Resolve Issue/Decision Review and Decide on Issue/Decision Document Resolution Decide on Issue Develop Consensus Decide on Issue/Decision Develop Consensus Issue/Decision Resolved Issue/Decision Resolved Review Decision with Application Steward Application Cabinet Refer to Application Cabinet Module Steward Module Team Application Cabinet Close No Refer to Design Phase or Integ. Cabinet Yes END Yes Module Team No Close Issue Application Steward No Yes No Yes

28 28 Project Structure and Governance Putting it all together…The Governance Model

29 29 Project Structure and Governance Superimposed with the…Project Management Organization

30 30 Project Structure and Governance Bring in the Project Organization Model…

31 31 Project Structure and Governance Now add some clear decision-making process flows…

32 32 Project Structure and Governance And bring in your implementation partners…viola! $

33 33 What worked… Cross campus collaboration and sharing of ideas was invaluable (and continues to be so) Decision making at the project and executive level effective Effective tracking of issues throughout

34 34 What didn't… Tendency for everyone to want to be involved with everything At time practice of governance not true to model Reliance on the strongest resources created unbalanced workloads for some

35 35 Chapter 5 – Project Execution

36 36 Project Execution Phases spanning 2+ years of work –Application and infrastructure Configuration Design Build and Test Deploy

37 37 Project Execution = KEY

38 38 What worked… Communication –List serves established (different systems) –Status reporting for key audiences Strong testing effort and documentation Effective modification approval process Solid change control tracking

39 39 What didn't… Communication –Sometimes not timely –Better tailoring of focus needed for the audience Meetings –Perception of too many meetings –Many meetings too long in duration Not enough time spent understanding each phase prior to starting that phase

40 40 What didn't… Better/more end to end testing Need to focus on performance testing MUCH earlier Map out database instance definitions earlier

41 41 Chapter 6 – Go-Live and Preparing for Operations

42 42 Go-Live Go live readiness –Developed a detailed go live readiness criteria list with go/no go decision scoring for each criteria –Held readiness meetings with 5 different key constituency groups at 3 different intervals prior to go- live Project office Project management team Core project teams Campus leadership teams Applications Cabinet teams

43 43 Preparing for Operations Developed operations processes concurrent with go live planning and execution Utilized Sr. Project Manager to organize required operations processes (‘run book’) Established teams of cross IT groups to develop and test required processes

44 44 What worked… Go live preparation and execution Campus readiness, preparation and participation Post go live support structure and commitment – ‘Command Central’ Tiered support structure –Tier I – Campus help desk –Tier II – Campus application experts –Tier III – Central IT group

45 45 What didn't… Definition of end user applications expectations not done early Applications operations and support processes developed far too late (should have started prior to go live prep and rollout) Remember transition/collaboration 2 nd bullet: Not nearly enough time developing the work plan / project framework for the upcoming project

46 46 End Product A consolidated HRMS/Financials Application and shared technology infrastructure A path to a competitive future Worcester Amherst President’s Office Lowell Dartmouth Boston

47 47 Key takeaways from this session Spend time up front: –Building your team –Building a governance model –Developing project methodologies –Developing an issues management process Keep an operational focus (early on) Define communication protocols, formal and informal Focus early on expectations management Get buy in from as many levels of constituencies as possible

48 48 Questions: Robert Solis, Director, Information Technology Services University of Massachusetts


Download ppt "1 The University of Massachusetts A Multi-campus ERP Implementation Case Study: What Worked and What didn't Robert Solis Director, Information Technology."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google