Mega Project – Minimal Trauma

1. Presented by Gay Brennan, Glenda Haines, Dianne Howard Mega Project – Minimal Trauma How Student Administration managed a major project to make a difference

2. What was the Project? • Need to align University of Auckland academic structure with tertiary sector • Sector norm for Equivalent Full-Time Student (EFTS) was 120 points in a year • Curriculum Commission had recommended adopting the 120 point model plus other changes to the academic structure

3. What was the University of Auckland situation? • University of Auckland normal full time load was 14 points in mostly 2 point courses • Normal full time enrolment was 7 courses a year • 4 courses in one semester • 3 courses in the other semester

4. What was the decision? • University decided in January 2003 to change to 120 points model • Most courses would be 15 points with some valued at 10 and 20 points • Normal full time enrolment would change to 8 courses a year with 4 courses in each semester

5. What did this entail? • Rationalisation and reduction of duplication in courses • Transitional regulations to cover existing students using the new course structure • Communication strategies for staff and students • Conversion of course values on student management system

6. How big was the Project? • 193 qualifications to be restructured • 6266 courses to be evaluated Of these, • 1989 courses were deleted • 4277 courses were re-weighted • Plus • 1183 new courses were introduced

7. What were the system changes needed? • Conversion of all course values on the student management system • Conversion of academic records to new points • Amending academic records and key reports to display course values in both old and new points

8. Any other changes? This was the opportunity to introduce other changes to the University‘s academic structure recommended by the 2002 Curriculum Commission: • Review of Postgraduate pathways • General Education programme

9. Restructure of Masters degrees • Two year Masters Degrees were to be split into a single year Masters programme preceded by • one year Bachelors Honours degree or • one year Postgraduate Diploma

10. General Education • Introduction of an innovative General Education programme for undergraduate degrees • Students would take two courses in their degree from a suite of General Education courses in a subject area not related to their degree

11. Anything else? • Standardisation of regulations and Calendar wording • Review of Satisfactory Progress requirements • Change to the regulations and system for administering Unsatisfactory Progress

12. How long was the Project? 3 year project Started - January 2003 Go live – 1 November 2005 New structure effective - 1 January 2006

13. Year One - 2003 • Scoped and established the project framework • Planned timelines and methodology • Established academic rules for the new structure • Commenced re-weighting the courses and reviewing qualification structures

14. Year Two - 2004 • Restructured courses and qualifications • Obtained internal and external approval for the new regulations • Wrote the transitional regulations • Started the analysis of system changes • Planned the conversion of course values and academic records on the system

15. Year Three - 2005 • Wrote and published Transition Handbook • Set up publicity campaign – staff seminars, newsletters, letters to students, web information • Changed the course values in the system • Converted the academic records • Went ‘live’ 1 November 2005 for 2006 enrolment

16. What is accepted practice? • Put a professional project manager in charge who would • produce a detailed project plan and set up a Gantt chart • write a quality assurance plan • develop risk management strategies • manage the information flow and reporting mechanisms

17. How are projects usually managed? • Set up a steering committee • Form specialised working groups • Bring in consultants for technical work • Establish a budget and devolve budget management to financial division

18. Did we follow this standard practice? NO How did we manage the project? We kept it simple!

19. So how did we manage it? • Management was entrusted to Academic Administration group so we • Engaged an experienced University administrator as co-ordinator of the Academic Project • Established the structure of the project • Commenced scoping exercise • Wrote plans and timelines

20. How did we staff the Project? • Used existing staff: • Group Manager, Academic Administration • Manager, Calendar & Regulations • Manager, Student Records • Plus • Engaged a manager for Academic Project in first year • Added a Project Administrator in second year • Added a Publicity Manager in third year • Used in house technical managers and staff

21. Did we use external resources? NO • Only used an external consultant once for four weeks to scope the PeopleSoft options • Used in house project co-ordinators for systems development and change management • System analysis development was carried out by existing staff in the Information & Technology Systems and Services division

22. How was the Project directed? • Kept project management in house • Direction provided by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) • Overall management by the Group Manager, Academic Administration • Used existing University committees for academic review and approvals • Formed a small high-level steering committee for final implementation year

23. What was our project style? • Utilized our knowledge and expertise • Trusted our own judgment • Used existing administrative committees, structures and templates • Used consultation and liaison between existing administrative and academic bodies

24. Did this approach work? Yes • All deadlines were met • Several milestones were achieved in advance of deadlines • Project was completed under budget • 2006 implementation went smoothly

25. Why did it work? Key factors were: • Empowerment to take charge and use initiative • Trusted to make policy decisions on academic issues • Simple, clear reporting lines facilitated decision making • Stakeholders had clear channels of communication with the team

26. Why did it work? • Small, integrated team worked closely together • Relied on the institutional knowledge, expertise and experience of the team • Use of existing committee structures provided a known framework for managing change • Meeting existing timeframes and external deadlines promoted controlled management

27. What can you learn from our experience? • You don’t have to use a professional project manager or follow the conventional project management route • It’s possible to use simple management tools • There’s no substitute for knowledge and experience • Consultants aren’t always right • Small can be good!