Download
1 / 42
420 likes | 556 Views
Portfolio Management: How to Manage System Implementations in a Complex University Al Regina, Christiano Santiago, Stan Taman OURA – February 21, 2007. Agenda. Opening introductions Scanning and adjusting to the culture at York – Stan Taman Project Management – Christiano Santiago
E N D
Portfolio Management: How to Manage System Implementations in a Complex University Al Regina, Christiano Santiago, Stan TamanOURA – February 21, 2007
Agenda • Opening introductions • Scanning and adjusting to the culture at York – Stan Taman • Project Management – Christiano Santiago • Project Tracking and Implementation – Al Regina
Executive Functional Management Operations Stakeholders
The York University Environment • York has a home grown Student Information System • There are 14 classic modules and approximately 28 Web services and counting for students based on SIS • Each Web service for students has an administrative version. There are an additional 22 Web services for administrative staff • For most stakeholders in the University, SIS is jointly administered by the SIS team in Computing and Network Services and the Systems area of the Registrar’s Office
The York Environment Cont’d • The first ‘true’ Web app was the Registration and Enrolment Module which was released in May 2002, redesigned and re-released in March 2004 • Most Web apps have been developed since that time • While maintenance and minor improvements are carried out on the ‘classic’ modules, almost all major SIS initiatives are now Web based. • Since mid-2003, over 75 apps of varying complexity have been delivered on the Web.
The Importance of Scanning the Culture of the Organization • In spite of the advances being made, there was a general feeling in the York community that their needs were not being met • In 2004 the VP Students and CIO and Executive Director of CNS began, in consultation with the Associate Registrar Systems and the Manager of SIS to review the process for the approval of project proposals • The originators of proposals are summarized in the following chart
SIS Task List Method Deficiencies • There was no formal proposal process • Requests for improvements/ enhancements came from a variety of sources • There was no formal approval process • Tasks were added to the list but were not removed unless completed • Clients did not receive regular feedback on their requests • Many tasks were not clearly enough detailed to allow an application to be developed • Members of the community felt they did not have real input on the project priorities
Lessons Learned • In a diverse system like a university there must be careful attention applied not just to the system of developing and deploying software applications, but also to articulating the approach and methodology throughout the organization • York had developed an ‘agile’ approach to providing Web services, but the stakeholders did not see it that way • Most current software development paradigms, (Service Oriented Analysis, Rational Unified Process etc.), recognize that the systems have the flexibility to be tailored to the culture of the organization • Pay attention to the culture of the organization
Computer Coordinating Council • Advantages • All requests are submitted on a project proposal form • Project proposals are approved at the VP level • The council meets every 3-4 times a year to review the status of approved proposals and to review new proposals • Project priorities are set by the council • Project proponents receive updated information
Computer Coordinating Council • Disadvantages • The council was kept deliberately small, in order to focus on strategic project planning • Major stakeholders, such as the Faculties, felt that they still did not have a voice in the direction of SIS projects • The council did not actively provide feedback to stakeholders
Registrarial Roundtable • The roundtable meets 3-4 times a year • Updates are given on all matters that impact the RO, or on registrarial matters that have an impact on stakeholders • It is an open forum that attempts to take advice on best practices, system proposals and priorities • A formal report on the status of the project list is given at each meeting of the roundtable • Changed project and legislatively mandated priorities are communicated to the members of the roundtable and priorities are reached by consensus • New proposals or changing priorities in regard to the project list are reported to the Computer Coordinating Council by the University Registrar
Initiating Planning Controlling Executing Closing Project Management Frameworks + = ? + +
Deployment Complete / Closing Release Readiness Approved Vision/ Scope Approved Initiating Executing Planning Project Plan Approved Scope Complete Controlling A custom framework
Executive Functional Management Operations Know your stakeholders Why? Vision & Strategy What? Tactics How? Technical Achievements
Risk Management • Risk Management Process – Microsoft Solutions Framework • Identification • Analysis & Prioritization • Planning & Scheduling • Tracking & Reporting • Control • Learning • Master Risk List • Impact: 1-Low; 2-Medium; 3-High • Exposure: Probability x Impact
Roadmap • Start-up meeting with sponsors • Brainstorm session with stakeholders • What are the project goals? • Business session with all team members • How can we meet the project goals? Which technology is required? Which processes need to be changed or improved? What are the alternatives? • End users, Developers, Business Analysts and Sponsors • Individual stakeholder interviews • What are the business rules? • Roundtable session with stakeholders • Validate proposed solution • Approval session with stakeholders • Approve the project plan
Project Documentation and Tracking • Project falls into three categories: • large Projects – documented on SIS project doc site • small Projects – documented on wiki site • RT (request tracker) • Determining projects category is based on: • time to complete is over 2 weeks • complex and difficult to: • rollout • complex security issues • internal and external auditor considerations • requires extensive documentation and tracking
Large Project Process • For the development process we follow a customized RUP methodology • A “Tech Lead” is assigned who runs the technical component of the project and keeps the documentation site up-to-date • Most projects are tracked by the PMO (Project Management Office) who report to the CIO • The documents and approvals are eligible for internal and external auditing • (bi) weekly status meetings are the norm • Extra resources are assigned if required • Special attention for additional infrastructure such as CPU, disks, networking and so on, is considered • Average project includes Project Manager, Tech Lead, Programmer and (data) Analyst
Document Project Web Site • A place to store all documentation • Is editable by the Tech Lead • Some documents are contributed by the end-user office • A place to record approvals • Documents are viewable by all team members • Template checklists are automatically added to some areas • Critical dates, project priority, project phase and other items can be recorded • A single place for all project-based reports
Small Project Process • Tracked and documented on an internal SIS wiki • Use of a standard wiki template • Average project includes one person - Tech Lead/Programmer • The main component is the status checklist or plan • The document can be edited by all SIS staff • All revisions to documents are stored internally
Future Considerations • Project process steps will be amended to include RUP phases, milestones and other RUP concepts • All large projects will include at least summary level Use Cases • Milestone meetings will include Director level signoff • Dates will be attached to each RUP step to better identify stalled projects
Summary CCC Priorities Registrarial Roundtable Requirements Registrarial Roundtable RO/SIS Project Team Project Plan Approval Process Project Plan Business Rules Project website RO Systems Services Implementation Iterative Versions Student Information Systems
